Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment and Short-time Working

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the widespread anxiety arising from the continuing trend of increasing unemployment, the reduction in overtime and the increase of short-time working; and if he will make a statement on the present position and future prospects.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am aware that anxiety has been expressed about the employment situation in recent months.
In the week ended 24th May the number of operatives working overtime in manufacturing industries was 180,000 less than three months earlier. Overtime was, however, still being worked by nearly 1,300,000 operatives or 22 per cent. of those covered by the returns. The seasonal fall in unemployment, which I told the House in February might be less than usual, was delayed until last month, when a fall of 18,000 occurred. While there was a fall of 25,000 in the number wholly unemployed between February and June, there has been an increase in short-time working which was reflected in a rise of 30,000 between these two months in the numbers registered as temporarily stopped. The number in civil employment is still high.
The usual seasonal increase in unemployment in the second half of the year must be expected to begin after July, but it is too early to say whether or not it is likely to be more than usual this year.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the upward trend of unemployment

for so many months, the information he has just given is very welcome? Whilst the difficulty of forecasting the future can be appreciated, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this fall is likely to continue, or does he feel that the 2 per cent. may be increased in the next few months?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the unemployment figure may go beyond 2 per cent. as the seasonal factors continue to move against us, as they will in a few weeks' time. The latest figures, as the House will have seen from the newspapers this morning, are a little more encouraging. They show a little improvement in the adverse trend of the last few months.

Mr. Lee: Would not the Minister agree that, although we are all happy to see the reduction of 18,000 in the number of unemployed, there are now about 44,000 more unemployed than at the same period last year and that the number on short-time work increased by 50,000 during May? For those reasons, would the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his colleagues in the economic Departments the need for widening the scope of industrial activity?

Mr. Macleod: We are conscious of that, and the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 3rd July showed that.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the Minister think, in view of the information he has given us, that the time has now come to limit immigration into the country?

Trade Union Officials (Northern Rhodesia)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether a reply has yet been sent to the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation, answering its inquiry as to whether full freedom of movement has been restored to trade union officials in Northern Rhodesia; and what are its terms.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the next meeting of the Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association will not take place before November, the International Labour Office has been informed that it is proposed to defer a reply so that account may be taken of the latest information then available.

Mr. Prentice: Can the Minister say why it has taken so long to prepare a reply in view of the fact that this inquiry was made some months ago? On the wider question, can the right hon. Gentleman state the reasons why in this territory normal standards of freedom of movement of trade union officials do not apply?

Mr. Macleod: The reason it has taken a long time is that a fuller explanation was asked for on the second point, which is the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question. I am sure it is right that we should consult carefully with the Governor of the territory concerned before we make our reply in November. On the subject of complaint, that, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

School Leavers

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies for boys have been notified to the Youth Employment Bureau in Blackburn; and how this compares with the number of school leavers who will be requiring jobs this mid-summer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): On 2nd July there were 43 notified unfilled vacancies for boys. More are expected to be notified in the next few weeks. About 380 boys will be requiring jobs this summer and it is thought that about 100 of them may have to wait for a time before they find employment.

Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this situation is alarming? Is not it a fact that the bulge in the schools is now passing into the labour market at the very moment when, on the one hand, National Service is coming to an end and, on the other, there is a recession in the cotton industry which is intensifying the problem locally? Will the right hon. Gentleman get his Department to enter into consultation at once with the Ministry of Education and any other appropriate Department to ensure that we do not have a repetition of the situation that existed in the old days in my constituency when young boys were leaving school with no prospect of employment and no alternative but to mess about in the streets?

Mr. Wood: I think the hon. Lady would be wrong to paint this picture too black. Last year, as she knows, there were rather fewer school leavers in her area and all but a very few of them were placed in employment within two months of leaving school. I suggested in my Answer that it will, I am afraid, take a little longer this year, but I am as convinced as is the hon. Lady of the need for finding employment for these boys and girls as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that there are sufficient youth employment officers employed by his Department to deal with the increasing number of young entrants to industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: Careful consideration has been given to the staff which will be required by the Youth Employment Service to deal with the additional numbers of school leavers during the next few years, and I am satisfied that adequare provision is being and will be made.

Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman, while bearing in mind the increasing number and the importance of the educational aspect, also consult the respective Ministers in England and Wales and in Scotland about making the best use of these young people by helping and advising them about jobs consonant with their educational attainments?

Mr. Wood: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, those education authorities in Scotland which operate the Youth Employment Service have been asked their requirements of employment officers in the next few years. They have made certain suggestions which we think are reasonable, and therefore the service to help these boys and girls will be increased as they have suggested.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour (1) in view of the growing problem of finding suitable employment for school leavers, if he will make a further statement;
(2) what action is being taken in conjunction with the joint committee of industry and trade unions to deal with the provision of employment for school leavers.

Mr. Wood: The best assessment I can make at present is that there will be difficulty in some areas, but the general prospects of employment for this year's school leavers are satisfactory. The job of placing them in employment may take a little longer than in some recent years and the choice open to them may not be so wide. The local Youth Employment Committees on which employers and workpeople are represented have an important part to play in developing employment opportunities for young people.

Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that in certain parts of the country the youth employment officers are getting really concerned at the impact of the school bulge upon youth employment in the community? While recognising that this is a problem which perhaps at the moment is not immediate, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that its ultimate effect over the next two years will be challenging? In view of that, may I express the hope that the Government will not regard this matter with complacency?

Mr. Wood: I do not disagree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said. He will probably agree that the availability of employment opportunities is a rather more important factor than the bulge itself, although of course both are important. I can assure him that I feel no complacency about this. I regard it not only as a great challenge; I regard the bulge itself as being an opportunity for industry, and I hope industry will take advantage of it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in South Wales the outlook for school leavers is worse than it has been for twenty years? Will the Government make some plans to provide for this situation?

Mr. Wood: I had a chance of seeing some of the problems of South Wales when I was there. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this depends very much on the general employment position and the coming of industry to South Wales. This is the real answer to his problem and I hope more industry will be forthcoming.

Industrial Health Services

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour what decision was reached at

the 42nd Conference of the International Labour Office on international action to establish occupational health services in places of employment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Conference adopted a series of general conclusions directed towards a recommendation on the organisation of health services in places of employment and decided to place the question on the agenda of its next session for a second discussion.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to inform us whether the I.L.O. has been supplied with a copy of the recent report on industrial health services in this country, and particularly whether its attention has been drawn to what, if I may say so, is the admirable pioneer work done at the Slough Industrial Health Centre?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I am confident that it has a copy, but I will make sure.

International Labour Office (Conventions)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what decisions were reached at the 42nd Conference of the International Labour Office regarding a convention to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, creed and sex;
(2) what decision was reached at the 42nd Conference of the International Labour Office on a convention on safeguarding the conditions of plantation workers.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Conference adopted a Convention and Recommendation on discrimination in respect of employment and occupation and on the conditions of employment of plantation workers.
The text of these instruments will be included in a report by the Government delegates to the Conference, which will be laid before the House in due course.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that news, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will ratify these instruments for the abolition of discrimination and for minimum conditions for the plantation workers?

Mr. Macleod: I think the hon. Gentleman must wait until this is done in


proper form and the announcements are made to the House. Of course the Government delegates voted for all four of these instruments and we have no objection in principle, though in detail some of them may cause a little difficulty.

Steel Industry

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons whose last jobs were in the steel industry are now unemployed; and how many still in the industry are working on short time.

Sir P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures of unemployment and short-time working in the steel industry, compared with similar figures of a year ago.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On 16th June, 1958, 9,040 workers, whose last employment was in the iron and steel industry, were registered as wholly unemployed, compared with 3,190 on 17th June, 1957. In the week ended 24th May, 1958, 25,697 operatives were working short-time compared with 5,556 in the week ended 1st June, 1957. I regret that separate figures for the steel industry are not available.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that those figures from such a vital industry as the steel industry, which is the genesis of so much of our manufacturing industry, are most alarming, and does he know that the Paymaster-General gave me a reply yesterday that they were now running at some 80 per cent. of capacity, which experts tell me is an overestimate? In view of all this, does not the Minister agree that extra effort must now be made to increase our steel production again, otherwise the engineering and other manufacturing industries will be in great trouble before long?

Mr. Macleod: I certainly agree that these figures are distinctly disturbing. On the wider Question which the hon. Gentleman put to the Paymaster-General yesterday, I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend and with the President of the Board of Trade and with my other colleagues in the Government on all these questions and on how best we can stimulate activity.

Mr. Robens: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, there are any plans for stimulating activity, in view of the reply he gave in the House some

time ago that the Government had plans ready for such an occasion?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think one can go into all the details. That point is covered by my previous Answer and the answer is, yes, we have planned as far as possible what we can do.

Training for Skill (Report)

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour what response he has received from industry and commerce to the suggestions contained in the Carr Report, Training for Skill."

Mr. Wood: The Report has been widely circulated among employers' associations and trade unions. In general, the recommendations call for examination and action within each individual industry, but the Committee considered that there was need for a central body to keep apprenticeship and training arrangements under review. This will be a function of the new council which is shortly to be established and to which I referred in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) on 25th June.

Mr. Owen: While appreciating that the council has still before it the essential suggestion of action, may I express the wish that the Minister will expedite as much as possible the convening of the meeting of the council and its functioning, in order to ensure that the problem of school leavers and employment, which is now growing, will be met as effectively as possible?

Mr. Wood: As regards the meeting of the proposed council, I told the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend a fortnight ago that it is likely to meet and come officially into being later this month, so it will not be very long delayed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced of the urgency of the problem, and I am sure the council will be too.

Pottery Industry, Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the figures for employment in the pottery industry in Stoke-on-Trent for December, 1955, December, 1956, and December, 1957, and the number of workers unemployed and temporarily stopped for the latest available date.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Statistics of employment in local areas are obtained only in respect of the end of May in each year. The figures for 1955, 1956 and 1957 for the china and earthenware industry in Stoke-on-Trent were 58,470, 57,170 and 51,630 respectively.
On 16th June, 1958, the numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Stoke-on-Trent, whose last employment was in the china and earthenware industry, were 785 wholly unemployed and 614 temporarily stopped.

Dr. Stross: Do not these figures imply that the blood-letting which the industry received as a result of the imposition of the 30 per cent. Purchase Tax two or three years ago has done it a great deal of harm? While it is fair to say that the industry is today fairly prosperous, is it not now at a much lower level?

Mr. Macleod: It is certainly true that it is at a lower level, but some of the indices of prosperity are today more comforting than they were a year or so ago.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has just given of people unemployed and temporarily stopped do not include large numbers of married women not registered at the employment exchanges; and that, therefore, in an industry like pottery, in which women are employed, that fact makes the position very much more serious?

Mr. Macleod: With respect to the hon. Lady, I tried to make this point in connection with the cotton industry a week ago. It is not true that married women are not included in the figures. If they are looking for another job and if they are registered, they are included. These figures include applicants for employment, whether or not they are qualified for unemployment benefit.

Pottery Industry (Health Survey)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to publish the pilot health survey of the pottery industry; whether the publication will be fully comprehensive; and whether he will make a statement at this stage of the general findings.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Inspectors of Factories have now completed their

survey of the pottery industry, and I am arranging for the results to be considered at the next meeting of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee in October. Further action will be settled in the light of the views of that Committee and of consultation with both sides of the pottery industry.

Dr. Stross: Would it be true to say that our suspicions that this is a most interesting report are correct, and, if that be so, may we have an assurance that it will be printed as fully as possible, so that we shall be able to study it with care?

Mr. Macleod: I should be surprised if the hon. Member does not know a good deal about this report. I have not read it myself yet, but I am told that it is one of quite exceptional length. I dare say that the presentation of it for publication will be a little difficult. After the consultations which I have indicated have taken place, we will take a decision on publication.

Factory Inspectorate (Engineering and Chemical Inspectors)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now succeeded in trebling the size of the Chemical and Engineering Branch of the Factory Inspectorate; and if he will state the number of new inspectors recruited for the General Inspectorate since the survey of 1955.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Since the publication in October, 1956, of the White Paper on the Staffing and Organisation of the Factory Inspectorate the number of engineering and chemical inspectors in post has been increased from 18 to 24 and 6 more are in process of appointment. An open competition to fill the remaining vacancies will shortly be advertised.
Since the same date, 61 inspectors have been recruited into the General Inspectorate.

Dr. Stross: In view of the fairly reassuring figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House, may I ask him if he can guarantee to us that his Department is getting a sufficient priority in obtaining these highly skilled people, such as engineers and chemists?

Mr. Macleod: I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that the comparative slowness of recruiting, which I regret very much, has nothing to do with economy or anything of that sort. I have always had full support from the Treasury in this matter.

Mr. Slater: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will publish in the report the areas which are covered by the chemical inspectors?

Mr. Macleod: I am not quite sure it would be possible to do that; but, if I may look into that point, I will write to the hon. Member.

Catering Wages Act

Mr. Rees-Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the views expressed in recent annual Reports of the Catering Wages Commission on the subject of workers in unlicensed residential establishments; and if he will now state what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Catering Wages Commission has repeatedly drawn attention to the need for revision of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, and to the unsatisfactory position of the Unlicensed Residential Establishment Wages Board, which during its period of activity from 1946 to 1949 never submitted any recommendations to the Minister. Since 1950 the Board has not been reconstituted.
It does not appear that the problem can be solved without legislation. When Parliamentary time permits, and that will not be possible this Session, Her Majesty's Government propose to repeal the Catering Wages Act, abolish the Catering Wages Commission and to convert into Wages Councils the four Catering Wages Boards now functioning. The wages and holiday regulations made under the Catering Wages Act will remain in force.
Only after an Act has been passed will it be possible to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Wages Councils Acts to consider whether a Wages Council should be established for workers in unlicensed hotels and boarding houses. Such a Commission of Inquiry would be free from the legal restrictions which have hampered the work of the Catering Wages Commission.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as I am quite sure it will, the whole catering industry—and, no less, my hon. Friends on this side of the House—will be delighted with what the Minister has just said about the future of this important industry? Since the Minister has covered a great deal of ground in his Answer, may I pose this further question to him?
With regard to the Catering Wages Act, may we take it that legislation will be introduced in the forthcoming year, and that it will cover what one might call the whole of the ground which is dealt with in the Reports of the Catering Wages Commission and will be a comprehensive review?

Mr. Macleod: Legislation, when it can be introduced, will take the form of an amendment to the Wages Councils Acts. I cannot give a guarantee about the time, beyond what is included in my main Answer, but it is certainly intended to cover all the main points to which I have referred in reply to the Question.

Mr. Robens: May I, first, thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving the House such early notice of his intention to repeal the Catering Wages Act and to take the other steps which he has indicated, which will give us good time to consider the implications, because, as he will appreciate, this may be a very controversial matter?
May I ask him whether the decision he has made has been based upon consultations between all the parties concerned in the industry—that is to say, representatives of the organised workers, hoteliers and others—and whether it is on their advice that he has proposed to do this?
May I also ask him if he would recognise that, while his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may be particularly interested in protecting the interests of those who own and control these establishments, we on this side of the House, and I hope also the right hon. Gentleman himself, are very much more concerned with protecting the workers? Will the Minister see that this is adequately done?

Mr. Macleod: I understand the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the question of consultation, this is a Government decision which I am


announcing. I have discussed this, particularly in the light of the series of Reports, with which the House is familiar, with Professor Shimmin, the chairman of the Catering Wages Commission. As to the position of the fifth board, dealing with small boarding-houses, it is really impossible, as has been pointed out on many occasions, to solve it in the situation as it is at present, and, therefore, after a great deal of thought, I have brought forward this solution. I believe it is the most flexible way of dealing with the problem, because it has been made clear that the Catering Wages Act, 1943, is too inflexible for the catering and tourist industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that this new legislation which is contemplated by the Government, no doubt, after careful thought by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will not lead to any reduction in the present wages standards, but, on the contrary, may lead to some improvement?

Mr. Macleod: I made it clear in my Answer, and, because it is important, I will repeat the sentence:
The wages and holiday regulations made under the Catering Wages Act will remain in force.
What I have said today does not affect that in the least. As to the future, the Wages Boards, which will become Wages Councils, are the main authorities in matters of that sort. I do not direct to them what their standards should be.

Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman be more specific on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) about the attitude of the trade unions concerned? Has he discussed this with them, and have they given an opinion?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have based this on the position as laid down in the Reports of the Catering Wages Commission over a period of years. I have had no discussions beyond that informal discussion which I have already indicated.

Mr. Robens: In view of the decision and the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him whether it is his intention, as is normal when dealing with

legislation of this kind, to have informal discussions with both sides of the industry before finally making up his mind on the nature of the legislation?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed. I am putting these matters to the National Joint Advisory Council in a fortnight's time.

London

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed in the London area at the latest available date, and at the same date last year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The figure was 54,322 at 16th June, compared with 32,526 at 17th June, 1957.

Mr. Lipton: While the Minister can say that the position is worse in other parts of the country or the percentage there is higher, would not he agree that, although there has been an improvement this month compared with last month, the unemployment figures in London are higher at present than they have been for a long time in a comparable month of the year? What will he do about it?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman has given the answer to his own question very well.

Redruth and Camborne

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of persons unemployed at the Redruth and Camborne Employment Exchanges at the latest convenient date; and the percentages.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The numbers were 372 at Redruth and 270 at Camborne at 16th June. The percentage unemployed for Redruth and Camborne combined was 4·2.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take into account the fact that this is about two and a half times the average for the South-West? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade to ascertain whether something can be done to divert new industries to my constituency and Cornwall generally, because we are frightened when we see so many new factories going up between Reading and London?

Mr. Macleod: This is a long-standing problem made more difficult by the remoteness of the area. The area is one of those that we had in mind in connection with the recent Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill. I am in touch with my colleagues, particularly the President of the Board of Trade, about the matter.

Glasgow

Mrs. McAlister: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the steadily rising unemployment figures in Glasgow; whether he is aware that a substantial proportion of these figures refer to tradesmen, such as painters, who are normally busy at this time of year; and what steps he is taking to find alternative work for them.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Although unemployment in Glasgow is higher than it was a year ago, it has declined very slightly in the last two months and the number of painters unemployed is small. My officers will of course continue to do all they can to place unemployed workers in vacancies notified to them by employers.

Mrs. McAlister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it amazes me in the extreme. Is he aware that at least one big firm in Glasgow, Scottish Signs, which does not object to being quoted, has told me that painters are normally very hard to get at this time of year but this year they are ten a penny? What is more, semi-skilled men who normally find no difficulty in getting work in the yards at this time of year are also in the market. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly study what the hon. Lady says. I understand that the number of painters unemployed in Glasgow is 52.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pattern of employment and unemployment is now worsening in the sense that people in manufacturing trades and industries are falling out of work and the tendency is for them to go into professional work, so that we are losing the basis of our manufacturing capacity?

Mr. Macleod: That is more properly a matter for debate. I dare say that it will arise a good deal in tomorrow's debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Deferments

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are at present deferred from call-up; and what is the current intake of men whose deferment has expired.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The number of men whose call-up was deferred on 31st March, 1958, the latest date for which information is available, was 403,020. The call-up of men whose deferment had expired averaged about 2,800 a month during April and May, 1958.

Mr. Lipton: In view of those rather formidable figures—formidable to the Services but not to those to whom deferment is granted—will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not allowing deferment to get so out of hand as to make it necessary for men born in the last quarter of 1939, for example, to be called up? Is this one of the factors which is still keeping those men in a state of suspense?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; it is not a factor in that. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a break-down of the 400,000, which is of considerable interest. It includes the indefinite deferments of coal miners, those engaged in agriculture, seamen and so on. Postponements on account of hardship are not included, and that figure is only about 2,000 at present.

Following is the information:

NUMBERS DEFERRED AT 31ST MARCH, 1958


Apprentices
133,401


Post-apprenticeship deferment
4,213


Articled pupils, etc
34,160


Agricultural workers
52,796


Coal miners
76,859


Seamen
38,292


Fishermen (Royal Naval Reserve Patrol Service).
1,673


Shale oil miners
144


Police cadets
1,550


Teachers and scientific workers
5,245


Boys at school
3,081


Students (full-time)
51,606



403,020

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement on the preparation of new Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations.

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. The revised version of the preliminary draft of the Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations referred to in reply to the hon. Member on 23rd April, 1958, was published on 20th May and those concerned have been invited to submit observations on this new version by the end of this month.

Mr. Willey: While I fully recognise the aid given by the Department to expedite these proceedings, will the Department do its utmost to ensure that we get these very desirable Regulations as soon as possible, because we recognise that there has been appalling delay?

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Lowestoft

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what official contracts for shipbuilding and ship-repairing have been placed with firms in the port of Lowestoft during the past twelve months; what contracts have been entered into for the present financial year; and whether, having regard to unemployment in these industries, he will take steps to ensure for them a reasonable share of Admiralty contracts.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): During the past twelve months a contract has been placed for the docking and refit of an oil lighter. For the reasons I gave to the hon. Member during the debate on 19th June, I can hold out little hope of sufficient contract work for the Royal Navy becoming available in the immediate future to enable further work to be allocated to Lowestoft.

Mr. Evans: Is the Civil Lord aware that his Answer will be received with very deep disappointment not only in Lowestoft but in the smaller shipyards generally? Is he aware of the importance of Admiralty contracts to the smaller shipyards and of the very fine service that Lowestoft in particular has rendered to the Admiralty in the past, particularly since the war? Will not he agree that as our order books do not extend very far—they are empty beyond 1959—the Admiralty ought to think a great deal about it because this may lead to the closing of some very important auxiliary works there?

Mr. Galbraith: I am very sympathetic towards places like Lowestoft which have in the past relied to a certain extent on Admiralty contracts, but, with the reduction in the amount of money the Admiralty has, I am afraid there is nothing more that we can do. We have great difficulty, but we try to spread the small amount of money around as fairly as we can.

Orders

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many orders for new tonnage to be built in British shipyards have been cancelled this year so far; and what is the total value of the orders so cancelled.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Eighteen licences, totalling approximately 200,000 gross tons, for new merchant ships to be built in United Kingdom shipyards, were cancelled during the first half of 1958. The approximate total value of these cancellations was £25 million.

Mr. Willey: Can the Minister say whether there is yet any slackening in the cancellations?

Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the Minister think that a number of these cancellations could be avoided if the naval slipways at Devonport were made available for the commercial building of craft? Is he aware that it is because of delays in deliveries that these cancellations arise?

Mr. Galbraith: I could not agree with that at all.

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of orders placed with British shipbuiders and the amount of tonnage ordered this year, as compared with the number and amount for the corresponding period last year.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Fifty-six new orders, totalling just over 130,000 gross tons, have been placed so far this year, compared with 159 orders, totalling 1,326,000 gross tons during the first half of 1957.

Mr. Willey: Can the Minister say whether there are any recent signs of an improvement in the placing of new orders?

Mr. Galbraith: Not without notice.

Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend bring these figures to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out to him that possibly some improved rate of depreciation allowance for ships might be a great help in this matter?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly bring these figures to my right hon. Friend's notice, but this is not a problem which arises only in this country; it is an international problem.

Mr. Shinwell: Has it not dawned on the Admiralty and the Government generally that these cancellations of shipbuilding orders in the United Kingdom will continue and will become a very grave problem until we solve the problem of the flag of discrimination and the flag of convenience? Why do not the Government take their courage in both hands, if they have any courage, and ask the United States Government to be reasonable with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Galbraith: That is another question. We had a debate on that subject a week or two ago.

Dockyards (New Construction)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the dockyard new construction programme for 1958–59.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: There is a programme of new construction, including three frigates, now going on in the dockyards. While I cannot give details about any future programme, I can assure the hon. Member that, as I told the House during the Navy Estimates debate, it is our intention to make use of the dockyards for new construction as far as possible, without undertaking the very considerable capital re-equipment, which would be required for further expansion in that direction.

Mr. Hayman: Can the Minister say whether two of the three frigates are to be built at Devonport or not?

Mr. Galbraith: One is being laid down at Devonport and the other two are at Portsmouth.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

N.A. 39 Aircraft

Mr. Steele: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent any pre-production or production orders have so far been placed for the Blackburn N.A. 39.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): An order was placed in July, 1955, by the Ministry of Supply for a development batch of twenty N.A. 39 aircraft. No production order has yet been placed.

Mr. Steele: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why no production order has yet been placed? In debates we have been promised that these aircraft would be forthcoming. Can he explain why they are not being ordered?

Mr. Allan: The aircraft flew successfully only at the end of April, and the time is not yet ripe for placing production orders.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the trials are proceeding satisfactorily and that the Royal Navy still badly needs these aircraft?

Mr. Allan: Yes, Sir; certainly. The trials are satisfactory, and there still is a strong naval need for the N.A. 39.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there some internal controversy about the aircraft? Is not it correct to say that the Minister of Supply has had some difficulty with the Royal Air Force about the provision of the aircraft? Has that now extended to the Admiralty?

Mr. Allan: I have just said that the Royal Navy has a need for the aircraft. What goes on between the Ministry of Supply and the Royal Air Force is not a matter for me.

Mr. Steele: Can we have an assurance that the Royal Navy will order these aircraft and that its order will not be dependent upon their being sold in America?

Mr. Allan: I do not think there is any question of the order being dependent


upon sales in America, though it would be nice if they could be sold there. The naval order is not dependent upon sales in America.

H.M. Ships (Disposal)

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, fleet minesweepers, and motor, gun, or torpedo boats that will be disposed of in the year 1958.

Mr. R. Allan: Decisions have been taken to dispose of 5 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 33 frigates, 9 ocean minesweepers and 31 fast patrol boats and motor, gun, or torpedo boats.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures, taken together with the figures of ships scrapped in 1956–57 show that a half to a third of the offensive strength of the Royal Navy has been disposed of without replacement? That excludes frigates and minesweepers, which are purely defensive vessels. May we have an assurance that adequate replacements are being provided to strengthen the offensive side of the Royal Navy?

Mr. Allan: I know the concern which is felt about the position of the Reserve Fleet, but I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that in present circumstances we must reduce the Reserve Fleet if only to maintain and develop the Active Fleet. In doing this, we discard only those ships whose condition or characteristics appear to be of least use. For instance, all the ships that I have mentioned except eighteen of the patrol boats are of prewar or war-time construction. It is, of course, the intention to sell rather than scrap the patrol boats. With regard to replacements, this year and next year 2 aircraft carriers, 2 cruisers, 13 destroyers or frigates, 16 minesweepers, 17 miscellaneous craft and a number of submarines will come into service for the first time either as new ships or completely modernised.

Mr. H. Hynd: In view of this great reduction in the number of ships, how many admirals will be available for scrapping or disposal?

Mr. Allan: That is another question, but I hope that the hon. Member saw recently that we have already reduced the number of admirals by fourteen this year.

H.M.S. "Ark Royal"

Mr. Hayman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the further modernisation of H.M.S. "Ark Royal" will include the provision of lifts.

Mr. R. Allan: It is intended that "Ark Royal" should be taken in hand in September for a special refit. This is not a complete modernisation. During this refit modifications will be made to the forward and after aircraft lifts and to one of the bomb lifts. No new lifts are being installed.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the hon. Member to consider whether he or the First Lord of the Admiralty should not consult the American naval authorities on the subject? I am informed that the American aircraft carriers have passenger lifts. Surely in these days the British aircraft carrier ought not to be behind any carrier.

Mr. Allan: I did not realise that the hon. Member was referring to passenger lifts or crew lifts. Her Majesty's ships are supposed to be manned by young and ablebodied seamen.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: It is a new ship.

Mr. Allan: The "Ark Royal" is not a new ship. I have seen reports giving rather damaging comparisons between United States carriers and our own, particularly about replenishment, but we are developing new replenishment techniques, and I recently attended an exercise where the time was reduced by half. I am also told that an aircraft carrier recently embarked at sea in a few hours stores which it would have taken two days to embark if she had been alongside. I am sure that our American allies would be the first to admit that most of the important recent operational developments in carriers have been British inventions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Boots

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War the total original cost of the 1,250,000 pairs of boots and 1,080,000 half-soles which have been found to be surplus to requirements.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The original cost of the boots was about £2 million and of the half-soles about £250,000. All, or nearly all, the half-soles will be kept for future use.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Secretary of State for War give the House some information about what action has been taken towards those in his Department who had these boots produced knowing full well that they would never be required? In view of the fact that the boots have been in stock in a depôt near Burton-on-Trent for over two years, will he say what is to happen to try to prevent an undue waste of public money in selling them?

Mr. Soames: As the hon. Member knows, I cannot discuss the Report of the late Auditor-General at present, because it is being discussed by the Public Accounts Committee and will be presented to the House.

Personal Case

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision rejecting the claim to a disability pension of Mr. E. P. Le Fleming, arising from his Army service; and whether he will arrange for an appeal to be heard by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, so that this man can exercise the same right of appeal as those whose cases are dealt with by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Soames: For reasons which have been explained in correspondence with the hon. Member the disability suffered by Mr. Le Fleming is not regarded as being attributable to war service.
The Pensions Appeal Tribunal was set up to consider cases dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and this is not such a case.
There is a special consideration, however, in this case, in that Mr. Le Fleming was born in Egypt and was called up in that country. Soldiers called up in Egypt were at one time given the right of appeal in pensions matters to an independent referee appointed by the British Embassy. These arrangements exist no longer, but because Mr. Le Fleming might once have benefited by them, I am prepared, if he so desires, to seek an independnt adjudication in this country on similar lines.

Mr. Prentice: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that everyone would agree that a man who joined the British forces abroad ought to have the same rights of appeal as a man who joined in this country.

La Salle College, Hong Kong

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement about the derequisitioning of the La Salle College, Hong Kong.

Mr. Soames: I am afraid I am not yet able to add to my previous Answers.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the twenty-seven years of its existence the college has been used as a school for only nine, that it has been requisitioned since 1949 and that in the Hong Kong Legislature several debates have taken place on the subject of derequisitioning? Cannot his Ministry decide now on what date they will hand it back as a school?

Mr. Soames: It has already been announced that we are determined to hand this building back. We realise the importance of this college to the citizens of Hong Kong and we are anxious to hand it back as soon as possible. On the other hand, we have a considerable number of troops in Hong Kong and they must have hospital facilities, and until we can devise some other way of meeting the need for hospital facilities, I am afraid that it will not be possible to release this building. We are doing our best to give it up as soon as possible, and I will make a further statement as soon as I am able to do so.

Territorial Army (Training Payments)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the changes in training payments to the Territorial Army.

Mr. Soames: We are providing enough money this year for what is considered to be the necessary amount of training. It will cover an average of 13 days weekend training for officers and 16 days for other ranks, over and above the attendance at annual camp and evening drills. Broadly speaking, this is the same amount of out-of-camp training as was carried out in 1956.

Mr. Strachey: While appreciating that the Secretary of State cannot countenance what might be called training for the sake of training, may I ask whether he can assure us that this reduction, or apparent reduction, will have no discouraging effect on Territorial Army recruiting, which has been so encouraging during recent months?

Mr. Soames: We have fixed this at what we consider to be the level to provide the necessary amount of training. If we discover that it does not provide sufficient time, we will certainly review it again, but, broadly speaking, it will provide the same amount of training as was done by the Territorial Army in 1956.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Kirkby, Lancashire

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to provide an adequate central post office for the new township of Kirkby, Lancashire.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): There are at present three branch offices and two sub-post offices in Kirkby, and these meet requirements reasonably well. A new central post office will certainly be required when the new township has developed further. This project is still, however, at the planning stage, and I cannot yet fix the timetable.

Mr. Wilson: As both the Postmaster-General and his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General have Merseyside constituencies, will he kindly arrange for one of them to look at the utterly inadequate conditions provided in the main post office in the area—and particularly at the facilities provided for the staff in cold weather? Will he also study the sickness rate arising from people being absent with colds as a result of those conditions?

Mr. Marples: I will certainly arrange for the post office to be looked at. I agree that the present facilities are inadequate, but when the new Crown office is built it will replace the present inadequate facilities.

Central Post Offices

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Postmaster-General how many towns with a population of over 40,000 have no central post office.

Mr. Marples: I could not obtain an exact answer without a great deal of inquiry, but most towns of the size mentioned have a centrally-situated post office.

Mr. Wilson: Would not it be better if the Postmaster-General devoted his energies to building post offices instead of doing this research? Will he look again at his Answer to Question No. 42—in which he says that he can do this only when the town has developed further—since its population is about 40,000 and the existing services are utterly inadequate?

Mr. Marples: The population is now 37,000, and it is rising to 60,000. It is hoped to start building round about 1960 or 1961, and the Ministry of Works is making a comprehensive plan for Government offices in the town centre.

Envelopes (Standard Size)

Mr. Tiley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider introducing a standard size envelope and encourage its general use by giving it a reduction in postage stamp duty.

Mr. Marples: The development of postal machines is likely to make some modification of the present sizes and types of envelope very desirable, and the subject is now being studied both in the British Post Office and in the Universal Postal Union. But we must await the results of these studies before deciding what should be done, and I see no prospect at present of any development which would permit a reduction in postage rates.

Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend believe me when I say that I did not expect that he would announce any postal reductions today in answer to this Question? Nevertheless, will he press on with the investigation, bearing in mind the fact that technical skill and modernisation have enabled him to reduce our telephone charges and his customers are expecting them to have the same effect on our correspondence costs?

Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall press on with our experiments. We intend to take a town of reasonable size and try out a standard envelope and see what impression we can make.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this investigation has been going on for at least ten years—long before I became Postmaster-General?

Mr. Hirst: What did the right hon. Gentleman do about it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: —long before I became Postmaster-General. Is there any possibility of the International Postal Union agreeing in the near future to a standard size of envelope?

Mr. Marples: I should not like to be responsible for saying what the International Postal Union is likely to decide, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we, in the British Post Office, will make this experiment.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The right hon. Gentleman has no powers.

Postage Rates

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the heavy burden now falling on the business and professional communities by the present rates of postage, especially for packages between two and four ounces; and how soon he anticipates that still further efficiency and improved methods will enable some reduction to be made in postage rates.

Mr. Marples: The higher charges for postal packets were the fairest we could devise to meet increased costs. We shall spare no effort to improve methods and increase efficiency, but I see no prospect at present of reducing postage rates.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is not it a fact that from a costing point of view within the Post Office business letters are carried at a profit and private letters at a great loss? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the scales are not weighted rather too heavily against the business community?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I am quite satisfied on that point.

British Empire Games (Special Stamps)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General what kind of special stamps he is issuing in celebration of the British Empire Games.

Mr. Marples: Three special double-sized postage stamps in the 3d., 6d., and 1s. 3d. denominations to mark the British Empire and Commonwealth Games will be put on sale on 18th July; details of the designs were published on 4th July.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain why he has given three special-sized stamps to Wales? I have no objection to Wales getting the stamps, but does the Minister know what the Scots will say when, Wales having got the stamps, he refuses to provide Burns stamps? Is not this adding insult to injury?

Mr. Marples: The stamps are not to commemorate Wales; they are to commemorate the British Empire and Commonwealth Games, which happen to be taking place in Wales. In any case, these Games are an event, and the Post Office has often issued stamps commemorating events, whereas Burns is a person—a very notable person, I agree—and the British Post Office has never issued a postage stamp to commemorate a person.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have full sympathy for my hon. Friend's desire for a Burns stamp, but may I express my gratitude to the Postmaster-General for having provided stamps for the British Empire Games, in which teams from thirty-seven countries within the Commonwealth, and from all the Continents, will be taking part?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Shared Services (Charges)

Mr. Short: asked the Postmaster-General whether a telephone subscriber who dials a shared service subscriber and does not get any tone is automatically charged for a call for the unsuccessful attempt.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. But only if certain faulty conditions exist in the shared subscriber's circuit, the chances against which are 5,000 to one. With


other types of fault, should these occur, the subscriber's meter does not record the call.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Highlands

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to enable the British Broadcasting Corporation to fulfil its duty to the people in Sutherland and other Highland counties who are denied television because there are not enough of them to make the service pay, in view of the fact that its present policy is at variance with the conception of a nationalised broadcasting service.

Mr. Marples: The B.B.C. has much in mind the needs of the Highlands but it regrets that because of limitations on its capital expenditure and its existing commitments, it does not expect to be able to start any extension of its television service to this area before at least 1960. Resources available for the extension of the television service are not unlimited, and I am sorry to say that there is no prospect of earlier provision.

Sir D. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend need to plead lack of finance? Has he noticed that a television programme company has made a net profit of £4 million this year?

Mr. Marples: That may be so, but that is not relevant to the capital expenditure of the B.B.C.

Sir D. Robertson: Does not it reveal that there is a considerable amount of money in the industry? Is it not within his powers to get hold of some in order to provide these people with the service to which they are entitled?

Mr. Marples: The Postmaster-General has no power to expropriate people's profits.

Coverage

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General which areas of the country have not yet been provided with any television transmission; and what is the total population of such areas.

Mr. Marples: Most of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the East Borders of Scotland, Central Wales and parts of

North and South-West Wales, parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone, the Peterborough area and the extreme west of Cornwall, are at present beyond range of television, although within some of these areas there are people receiving signals of varying quality. The total population concerned is about 900,000.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the Postmaster-General refuse to provide a channel for a third programme either to the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., until these areas get at least one programme?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree with the importance of these areas getting a programme—and the B.B.C. is pressing ahead as fast as it can—but I should not like to give an undertaking of that nature.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman will be considering—sympathetically or otherwise—an application for a third programme in the densely populated areas, to the detriment of those areas which have no programme?

Mr. Marples: If the B.B.C. or I.T.A. asks for a third programme, I shall have to consider it.

Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to say when Central Wales will get a television programme? It is important for the rural population in that area at least to know something of what is happening in the outside world, in order to stop them leaving the area.

Mr. Marples: I agree that it is desirable that people in that part of Wales should know what is happening outside, but I should be grateful if the hon. Member would put down a special Question in respect of any area which he has in mind.

Band III (Third Service)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet received any advice from the Television Advisory Committee on the allocation of further channels in Band III for the provision of a third television programme.

Mr. Marples: It has advised me on the technical point that it is possible to allocate channels in Band III to provide a third television service with substantial


national coverage. It does not advise me on who should operate such a service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Among the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has received, does the Advisory Committee suggest that a 100 per cent. coverage is possible with the present two programmes if a third programme is provided on Band III?

Mr. Marples: The Committee did not mention the existing channels. The four channels of Band III which will be available when we move the people at present using them would allow for a coverage of between 95 per cent. and 98 per cent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has not got my point. I asked whether or not the use of those four channels by the I.T.A. or the B.B.C. for a third programme would prevent a complete coverage by the other two programmes.

Mr. Marples: Nothing in respect of the four channels has any bearing upon the other channels.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General What proportion of the population has been provided with two television programmes.

Mr. Marples: At present 75 per cent. of the population can receive both B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes

BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (INMATE'S ESCAPE)

Mr. H. Morrison: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the escape of an inmate from the Broadmoor Institution.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Yes, Sir. I regret to say that Frank Samuel Mitchell escaped from the Broadmoor Institution in the early hours of Tuesday morning. He was in the maximum security block, and consequently occupied a single room with the door locked, and the window barred and shuttered. His day clothes had been removed from the room. I understand that he escaped by opening the window shutter with a duplicate key, sawing through the window bars, and climbing

30 yards along a high coping. Subsequently, he climbed the outer wall. At or about 4 a.m. he broke into a, house at Wokingham and stole clothes and a a car, in which he drove away about an hour later.
Shortly before 5.30 a.m. the institution were informed by the police of the events in Wokingham. An immediate check was made but, since Mitchell had left a dummy in his bed, no patients were observed to be missing. At 7 a.m., when the doors were unlocked, Mitchell's absence was discovered, and the police were at once informed. The search for him is being prosecuted vigorously.
A full, detailed report is being prepared by the Medical Superintendent, and should reach the Board of Control tomorrow.

Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why this particular inmate was given a room to himself? Can he also tell the House why there was, apparently, a material delay in sounding the siren after the escape, and, indeed, after the escape became known? Can he assure the House that an inquiry—which, I suggest, might be an independent inquiry—will be instituted into this escape?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Mitchell was accommodated in the way considered appropriate for the maximum security block in which he was.
Regarding the siren, at the time when the institution became aware of the escape, that is to say, at 7 a.m., the staff were acting on the information that Mitchell had made his escape in a stolen car. In those circumstances the Medical Superintendent considered that it was highly improbable that he would be in the locality, and did not, as I understand, give the immediate signal for the siren because of that circumstance; and his desire not to alarm the neighbourhood in what—if that hypothesis had been correct—would have been an unnecessary way.
I think that perhaps it would be better for me and for the House that I should await the report which the Board of Control is receiving from the Medical Superintendent before deciding on the point about an inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the fact that this man returned to the neighbourhood of the establishment show that the decision not to sound the siren was an unfortunate one? Would not it be better for a standing instruction to be given that the siren should be sounded as soon as an escape has been discovered? Can my right hon. and learned Friend also tell me—if it lies within his Departmental responsibility—whether any delay occurred in informing police stations in the surrounding countryside of the escape of this dangerous person?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The question of action by the police is not a matter for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The principle is that the warning siren should be operated by the responsible officer on duty "as soon as an escape has been detected"—that being the phraseology of the Scott Henderson Report. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it obviously right now to say that the judgment was an unfortunate one because, so far from Mitchell having left the locality in the car, it was subsequently discovered that the car had been abandoned. But that is not to say that the appreciation which was made at the time was not a reasonable one, or might not have been a reasonable one, in the light of the facts as then known to the Medical Superintendent.

Mr. Lipton: As one who lives in the immediate vicinity of Broadmoor, may I ask the Minister very seriously to bear in mind that there is considerable local misgiving about this episode, which is not the first one of its kind—I will not refer to an unfortunate previous case? Will not he now consider that, so far as security precautions are concerned, there is reason for saying that the administration of Broadmoor should be returned to the Home Office?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have every understanding and sympathy for local feelings and apprehensions, as expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but I think it right that the right perspective of this matter should be borne in mind. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a number of escapes. It is right to say that this is the first escape—with one relatively minor exception, which was a break-away from a working party—since the publication of the Scott Henderson Report in the summer of

1952, and since action was taken following on the recommendations made therein.
The hon. Gentleman's question about the transfer of jurisdiction raises a rather wider issue which I should not wish to enter into at this time.

Mr. Hurd: Does not this episode raise again the whole question of the desirability and wisdom of keeping dangerous criminal lunatics in a district which is fairly thickly populated? Is it really reasonable that the people of Berkshire, and particularly the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)—unfortunately, my hon. Friend could not be present this afternoon—should be put in jeopardy by a man who can escape, is determined to escape, and, within a few miles, and a short time after escaping, breaks into a house, terrorises people, obtains clothes, steals a car and is away, and neither the police, nor anybody at the institution have a clue as to where he has gone? Is that reasonable?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Institutions of this sort, obviously, are not a popular or an agreeable feature of any locality. While I have every sympathy with the point of view which my hon. Friend has properly expressed on behalf of his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), I must remind my hon. Friend that Broad-moor has been used for this purpose uninterruptedly since 1863.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is it not a fact that a substantial number of cures have been effected at Broadmoor, and that that would be less likely if the inmates were cut off from ordinary contact with their families, and people outside? Is the Minister aware that, while all of us insist on the maximum security arrangements, many of us would regard it as a retrograde step if the institution ceased to be a hospital and reverted once again to control by the Home Office?

Mr. Walker-Smith: In all these matters we walk the razor edge between trying to have the maximum security, on the one hand, which is a very proper objective of public policy, and on the other, ensuring the maximum possible rehabilitation which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, works very well in a large number of


cases. It is along that rather difficult razor edge that we try to make the best progress we can.

Mr. Gough: In view of the information that this man was possessed not only of a skeleton key, but possibly also of some form of saw, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us how often thorough searches are carried out both of the men themselves and of the rooms in which they live?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am awaiting that information, as part of the expected contents of the full and detailed report from the Medical Superintendent to the Board of Control.

ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1956–57

Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Army and Air grants for the year ended 31st March, 1957, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Tuesday next.

Appropriation Accounts for the Army and Air Departments [presented 27th January] referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Heath.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class III, Vote 15 (Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services))

Class III, Vote 16 (Police, Scotland)

Class III, Vote 17 (Prisons, Scotland)

Class III, Vote 19 (Fire Services, Scotland).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with Safeguards for the Consumer, namely:—

Civil Estimates, 1958–59



£


Class VI, Vote 1 (Board of Trade)
10


Class VI, Vote 8 (Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements)
10


Class V, Vote 4 (Ministry of Health)
10


Class VIII, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
10


Class V, Vote 10 (Department of Health for Scotland)
10


Total
£50

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: When the present Home Secretary delighted the Conservative Party Conference in 1954 by saying that he saw no reason why we should not double our standard of living in the next twenty-five years, cynics on this side of the Committee suggested that the right hon. Gentleman had possibly been misreported and that "cost of living" was what he said and not "standard of living". For the sake of the right hon. Gentleman's reputation as a prophet, I hope that the cynics were correct, because the Government have made better progress towards doubling the cost of living than they have towards doubling the standard of living since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: That is not true.

Mr. Greenwood: If we were to double the standard of living in twenty-five years it would involve a cumulative increase in industrial production of 3 per cent. per


annum, whereas, since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, the cumulative increase has been only 1½ per cent. per annum. That the Government have made much better progress towards doubling the cost of living is shown by the fact that what cost £1 when the Labour Government went out of office would cost 26s. today. At that rate, a Tory Government would more than double the cost of living in twenty-five years.

Mr. Osborne: Is not the hon. Member making the most astonishing accusations against my party? Will he not now give the figures of consumption of basic foodstuffs in 1952, and the comparative figures for today?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that only the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is astonished. Nobody on this side of the Committee has been astonished. I have given the facts and figures which are relevant to the speech which the present Home Secretary made in 1954.
The Government's achievement is the more surprising when we remember the drop in raw material prices that has taken place over that period. The latest figures, given in International Financial Statistics for June, 1958, issued by the International Monetary Fund, show that, since the present Government took office, import prices have dropped from 112 points in 1951 to 106 in 1957. Over the same period—perhaps this will satisfy the hon. Member for Louth—wholesale prices have risen from 100 to 112 points. It is clear that the Government have not yet succeeded in ensuring that housewives get the benefit of any changes in world prices.
It is true that the cost of living fluctuates slightly from month to month and that there has been no sudden increase, but, nevertheless, the increase is a steady one. The Index of Retail Prices, for example, was 102·5 for May, 1956. It was 104·6 in May, 1957. And it was 109·2 in May, 1958. The Observer of 15th June pointed out that although there had been no sudden acceleration in the rise in the cost of living recently there was no mistaking its continued upward trend.
In those circumstances, we believe that wise buying, guarantees of quality, and

safeguards for the consumer are especially necessary when the value of money is steadily falling. The Labour Party will publish, on 20th July, our "Plan for Progress", which will detail our plans for expanding the economy, increasing production, raising the standard of living, and securing reasonably stable prices. It will also set out those safeguards which we believe to be necessary for consumers. Lest the Press should overlook those points, in favour of our more basic economic proposals, I propose to outline the safeguards for the consumer very briefly this afternoon.
We propose quality labelling of all goods which reach a reasonable quality standard, and effective descriptive labelling of goods, giving information of their composition and performance. We say that where safety or health is involved, as in the case of electrical equipment or children's footwear, the production of goods below a proper standard should be prohibited. We declare that we shall tighten up the hire-purchase Acts to prevent the present exorbitant rates of interest. And we shall implement the Hodgson Report, on which the President of the Board of Trade has now been sitting for the past seven years.
We call for a real drive to ensure clean food. And we emphasise the need for informing and instructing the public about its rights and about where information as to the quality of goods can be obtained. In these proposals we are resuming the work of the last Labour Government in protecting the consumer. I do not want to weary the Committee with going into too much detail about the ways in which the last Labour Government protected the consumer, but I would emphasise particularly the maintenance and development of the Utility scheme, and the establishment of consumers' councils in nationalised industries. In the light of that record we believe that we are entitled to ask how the Government are dealing with the problem.
As a start, I want to stress what I believe all hon. Members would agree with, that the quality of British goods is generally high, but that in some respects it could be higher still; that most manufacturers and tradesmen are men of responsibility and integrity, but that there are bad ones as well. It is against the latter that we wish to safeguard the public.
The first point I want to put to the Government is this. What progress is being made in the matter of monopolies and restrictive practices? I touch on this matter very briefly, because I hope that some of my hon. Friends will deal with it more fully in the course of the debate. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I presume, is to reply, what the Government are doing about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the Supply of Electronic Valves and Cathode Ray Tubes. It was signed in September, 1956, and it is not at all clear yet whether the Government are proposing to take steps to deal with the serious situation that that Report revealed.
On restrictive practices, all we know about the immediate future is that the Lord Chancellor announced at the beginning of May that what he called three "heavy and important cases" are to be heard by the Restrictive Practices Court in the Michaelmas term, presumably after October. But there are 40 other cases which the Registrar has said he is proposing to refer to the Court. Could we be told by the Government about the sort of programme that they have in mind, and how long it will take the Court to deal with all the cases which are being brought to its attention?
One racket that I want to stress this afternoon is the hire-purchase racket. It is true that, thanks to the enterprise of private Members, notably the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, the worst abuses of hire purchase have been mitigated by the Hire-Purchase Acts of 1938 and 1954 and by the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, which the House passed last year. What is the Board of Trade doing, by persuasion or in any other way, to end the remaining abuses?
I will give the Committee an example of what I have in mind. Many hire-purchase advertisements still state that the finance charge for hire purchase is, for example, only 10 per cent. per annum, but the amount advanced is constantly being reduced as payments take place. What is announced as a 10 per cent. finance charge on a £100 advance over two years is, in effect, a finance charge of 18½ per cent. There is no doubt that many people sign hire-purchase agreements under a complete misapprehension.
I was shocked to find that the finance charge for small advances of, for example, £15 varies from 28 per cent. for a one-year agreement to as much as 50 per cent. for a three-year agreement. When we remember that last year £150 million worth of furniture and furnishings were sold on hire purchase, and that the average family today carries a hire-purchase debt of £40, we begin to realise the importance of this problem and the need to protect the consumer against those who misuse the system.
I turn now to the rather difficult question of quality standards. When the Government wound up the Utility scheme in March, 1952, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) emphasised that in ending the old scheme the Government must provide a safeguard for the future. He said that he had discussed it with the British Standards Institution, and then used these words:
The Institution have agreed to establish a range of British Standards … specifications for the purpose. I have received assurances from a number of trade bodies that they will at once proceed to devise with this Institution specifications based on those Utility specifications which provide some guarantee of quality or performance for the consumer.
In particular, the cotton industry have told me that they propose within a few weeks to deal in this way with the most popular specifications, which cover a wide range of cotton cloths and household textiles up to about 75 per cent. of the trade in those particular types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1584.]
The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, promised the cotton industry would do this within a flatter of weeks and the following year, twenty months later, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) tabled a Question to the right hon. Gentleman to which he replied:
A standard for tickings for domestic bedding was published on 6th October. Apart from this, the cotton industry has not found it possible to devise agreed standards based on utility specifications as originally proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1119.]
The general progress with the working out of this scheme has been deplorably slow. The right hon. Member for Monmouth was infinitely more successful in his rôle of Lancashire's hangman than in his self-appointed rôle of St. George defending the British housewife because, outside furniture and bedding, only a


very limited section of goods bears the Kite mark and the value of the Kite mark itself is very doubtful.
I want to remind the Committee of the weaknesses of the Kite mark scheme. First, these marks do not state what they are certifying. There is no quality grading on the Kite mark. They give no indication of whether or not there is value for money. As they indicate only a minimum standard, many—probably most—of the best manufacturers refuse to use a Kite mark.
It is perfectly true that some inspection and testing takes place, but I submit to the Committee that the value of the Kite mark is best illustrated by the case which was decided at the Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court, in April, about the sale of pillows. Here I would emphasise that on the back of "Shoppers' Guide", published by the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, we find a description of the value of the Kite mark, which says, under the heading "Pillows":
The Kite mark means there is no skimping the amount of filling, and when labelled 'down' or 'feathers' you will find just that inside. The tick has to be strong and feather-proof.
It was disclosed in the course of the proceedings at Marlborough Street, in April, that the Retail Trading-Standards Association had caused three pillows marked with the Kite mark to be purchased in a London store. All three pillows bore labels claiming that the feather fillings conformed to Kite mark standards of cleanliness, which call for a maximum total of extracted matter of 2 per cent. In fact, the three pillows contained an average of 3·7 per cent., 3·9 per cent. and 3·1 per cent. respectively. The magistrate awarded 500 guineas costs against the company concerned.
The Economist commented on the case by pointing out that apparently the British Standards Institution had no hint of the impending prosecution until the writ was issued, and the article ended by saying:
So the B.S.I. is in the undignified position of having its barking done for it by another watchdog.
I think that we should give credit to the fact that trade and industry have bodies like the Retail Trading-Standards Asso-

ciation and the Trades Advisory Council, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) has been associated for some time. They are bodies to which industry subscribes and which are prepared to take vigorous action to protect the public against unethical trading.
The failure of industry to agree standards is a serious failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who has been most assiduous in pursuing the Parliamentary Secretary on these matters, elicited from him recently the fact that deadlock had been reached in respect of children's footwear. It is quite clear that while perhaps deadlock has not been reached with reference to other goods, progress is dismally slow. Moreover, when standards are agreed they are not necessarily applied by the industries concerned.
I say bluntly to the Board of Trade—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey this criticism to his right hon. Friend, whose absence this afternoon we find it difficult to understand—that there are those in this Committee and in industry as a whole who believe that some industries will not "pull their socks up" and enforce standards so long as the President of the Board of Trade continues to insist that he has no intention of resorting to compulsion. So long as the right hon. Gentleman emphasises that, he cuts the ground from under his own feet in any negotiations. Many of us feel that the President of the Board of Trade has yet to convince the House that tact and discretion are included among his no doubt very numerous and very great qualities.
We are entitled to assume that the Government regard their present powers as adequate, except, of course, in the case of the Hodgson Report. We have been promised on numerous occasions that the Government would implement that Report, and the last time the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the matter he said that the Government would implement it when time permitted. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that many people throughout the country will regard it as a great pity that the Government found time to introduce a Bill protecting the landlords, but could not find time to introduce a Bill protecting consumers and housewives.
In the meantime, even if the Government cannot find time for a full-scale weights and measures Bill, could they not introduce regulations which would make the fullest use of their existing powers? I hope that in response to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this is the intention of the Government, because we cannot wait very much longer for the implementation of the Report of the Hodgson Committee.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, too, whether the Board of Trade is trying, by persuasion or in any other way, to get effective labelling, quality labelling or accurate labelling of goods. I say "by persuasion or in any other way," because I know that the powers of the Government are limited in that respect. At present, the Merchandise Marks Act is very far from clear, and after the last one had been passed, Mr. H. Fletcher Moulton and Mr. P. G. Langdon Davies, writing in "The Law of Merchandise Marks", commented:
The new law does nothing to remove the uncertainties and obscurities of the earlier Acts.
The present Lord Chief Justice had on a number of occasions, I believe, commented on the ambiguity of the Merchandise Marks Act.
This is clearly a sphere in which positive action is needed from the Board of Trade. I wear what are called "drip dry shirts", which are labelled, "You need not iron." Up to a point that is true. It is also true that I need not clean my shoes or brush my hair, but both my shoes and my hair look, I hope, infinitely better if I do. Equally, the shirts I need not iron look infinitely better when an iron has been applied.
On Saturday afternoon, in the light of this debate today, I did rather more shopping than is normally my practice. I bought four tins of talcum powder. I found that only one, Morny's French Fern, indicated the weight on the tin. How easy it is for the other manufacturers to increase the price of their products by reducing the amount of powder in the tin! Obviously, a reduction of approximately 10 per cent. in the amount of powder, which no one could detect unless he weighed the tin, would involve an increase of approximately 10 per cent. in the price of the article.
I bought four packets of toilet soap and I found that not one of them indicated the weight. My most remarkable experiences, however, were in the case of detergents and breakfast foods. I found that on not one detergent or soap powder packet was any weight shown. Also, there was no indication of whether any potentially harmful substances were included in the powder. I was, however, amazed by the claims which were made for these preparations.
For example, I found that Daz is described on the packet in this way:
For the world's whitest boil. One boil in blue Daz will get your clothes more radiantly white than ever before.
On another side of the packet it states:
It's true! Blue Daz is specially designed to give you the world's whitest wash in just one boil. … Blue Daz for the whitest wash on earth …
That is a detergent made by Thomas Hedley, of Newcastle.
I also bought a packet of Tide, which, I found, bears the slogan, "Tide for the cleanest whites". It also states:
Until Tide came in you never had your clothes so clean. … Now today's Tide has even greater cleaning power. A new magic ingredient actually gives your whole wash an extra cleanness. We guarantee you'll see the difference.
Strangely enough, Tide is also made by Thomas Hedley, of Newcastle.
I also bought a packet of soap powder which is called Fairy Snow, on which I read:
Fairy Snow is unbeatable for whitness—it gives you white, white clothes—whiter clothes than you would have thought possible.
On another part of the packet it states:
Fairy Snow gives you the whitest, brightest wash you've ever known!
I should add that Fairy Snow is made, believe it or not, by Thomas Hedley, of Newcastle.
Omo, on the other hand, which is made by Hudson and Knight, "Adds brightness to whiteness" and the packet states:
You'll see! The moment your first Omo-bright wash goes up on the line. Never, never have whites been so bright, bright, BRIGHT. They put ordinary whiteness completely in the shade!
And everybody knows, of course, that "There's no whiteness like Surf whiteness". Surf is made by Levers.
It is obvious that at least one of those detergents is making an exaggerated claim. They cannot all be right in claiming that each of them produces the whitest wash on earth, and yet I have no doubt that there are many people who are deceived by this detergent advertising, just as at election times, unfortunately, they are deceived by propaganda from the party opposite.
In the case of breakfast foods, I was surprised by the free presents and bonus schemes which are operating. For example, I learned that in a packet of Cubs I would find "an exciting plastic scale model aircraft." The packet read, "Start collecting your own air fleet today." That is quite a tip for the Minister of Defence.
Now, Cornflakes I found to be most generous. On one side of the packet I found that I could "win a 14-day holiday in America." On another side I found that there was a silverware offer of a fish knife and fork for
… only 6-plus 4 Silverware Tokens from Kellog's' packets.
On the back I found that if I was a "kid" I could get a—
9-inch build-it-yourself model of the Pan-Am jet clipper.
Shreddies make three staggering offers. There is the offer of an exciting new space wheel that really flies! There is an offer of
Stainless steel tableware at a special price 3 Dessert Spoons for only 4/11 and 6 tokens.
The most interesting offer of all, I think, is an "Amazing, inflatable cushion bag" which is "Yours for only 2/9." It is a cushion bag which inflates so that people can sit on it; it might be a tremendous boon to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious about their seats.
If these offers are genuine, and no doubt they are, somebody has to pay for them. Without these schemes, and without the monster advertising by many of these firms on television and in the Press, there is no doubt that the price of many of these articles could be reduced substantially.
I do not think that I should conclude without paying tribute to those organisations which are now defending the consumers. First, there is the Co-operative movement, which is a consumers' democracy, and which has recently appointed

a special lecturer in consumer protection. Then there are two organisations, the Consumers' Advisory Council, which produces the "Shoppers' Guide" and the Association for Consumer Research, which produces "Which?". I find the latter a good deal less inhibited, a good deal more astringent and a good deal more helpful than the rather more officially minded "Shoppers' Guide", but I think that through all these organisations and the publications for which they are responsible we are at last catching up with the United States, Canada and Scandinavia.
The weakness of these publications is that both of them cost 10s. a year, and they are, therefore, unlikely to go into the homes which, perhaps, most need guidance on how best to spend the money which is available. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary what steps his right hon. Friend is taking to make the information they contain available to the general public through libraries, through post offices and through shops, and to inform the public on this whole issue through the schools, through the Central Office of Information, and by radio and television.
Let us, however, never forget that ultimately the most effective protector of the public is Parliament itself. If we are vigilant and persistent, as many of my hon. Friends have been in this matter, we can uncover abuses and we can press for reforms and for amendment. It was in that spirit and in that determination that we asked for this debate today. Unless the Government are able to satisfy us that they are doing their utmost to face the responsibilities which Parliament has conferred upon them, we shall find it necessary to divide the Committee.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: We are very grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for opening this debate in such an entertaining way. We have greatly enjoyed his speech. We should be not so delighted if it were all true. The hon. Gentleman painted a very gloomy picture of the downtrodden consumers. I do not find housewives downtrodden or submissive at all. When I go shopping I keep my eyes about me, and my wife keeps her eyes about her, too. She gets good value, as the other people do, who shop in the places where we do


our shopping. Of course, it is great fun, as the hon. Gentleman did, to trot out all the advertising gadgets which are part and parcel of large-scale marketing today.
I do not want to do that, but to consider some fundamentals. I shall speak about one side of the business of providing what consumers need, a side that I happen to know something about—the food production side. I should like the Committee to take note of what our own farmers are achieving in meeting the needs of consumers. It is vital that they should and that they should make even more progress than they have hitherto. This is a competitive age. We do not have bulk buying by the Government in a Conservative régime. We have to stand on our feet and are judged by the quality and the reputation for value of what we produce and have to sell.
There are two products which are particularly delicate, particularly open to abuse and to deterioration if not properly handled. One is milk and the other eggs. We can take credit, whether we are producers or distributors of milk, for the fact that today we are turning out a first-quality product with the least possible risk of disease or contamination attached to it. It requires a great deal of care on the farms, and in the depots where the milk is first treated and also, of course, at the retail point; and, indeed, all the way to the housewife's doorstep. It is rarely today that we hear of a housewife complaining about the quality of the milk which is provided. As soon as 1960 we shall have the whole country clear of what has been a bad scourge for cattle and human beings, bovine tuberculosis. That is a great advance in which all of us in this Committee and in the farming community and veterinary profession can find real satisfaction.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Is not the advance really due to two factors, first, to the Co-operative movement, which led the way for a clean milk supply, and, secondly, the Government, who themselves have accepted a great amount of responsibility for making sure that there is the necessary protection for the consumer in getting a good, healthy, clean milk supply?

Mr. Hurd: The Co-operative movement has played its part, but ii is a quite small operator in the milk business.

Mrs. Slater: Nonsense.

Mr. John Stonehouse: rose—

Mr. Hurd: Let me finish. I know the facts. There happens to be a co-operative depot not far from where I live, and there also happens to be a Milk Marketing Board one, and big creamery units of the United Dairies and other private enterprise firms.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Government's part. I agree. I have said that all of us in this Committee, where we have some say in what Governments do over a period of years, can take our full share of the credit for the lead which Governments have given, and for the full co-operation with which the producers also have answered it. Whether we are speaking for the Co-operative movement, or whether we are farmers, we can all take credit for the advance which has been made. We have made great progress with our milk supply. It compares well in quality and freshness and soundness with that of any other country in the world.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has got the facts completely wrong? The Co-operative movement distributes 35 per cent. of the country's milk supply, and that proportion has increased in the last twenty years.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I was talking about getting milk from the farms. It is that end of the line which decides whether the milk is clear of tuberculous infection or not. It is not what happens in the retail shop.
We have made great progress, too, in providing consumers with fresh, reliable quality eggs. Perhaps the British Egg Marketing Board was too forthcoming with some of its publicity to start with. Be that as it may, we are producing a really top quality product. I was impressed last week at the Royal Show, at Bristol, to find the British Egg Marketing Board devoting much of its demonstration to showing farmers and their wives how vitally important it is to handle eggs aright from the start to protect them from contamination or deterioration which can all too easily affect eggs.
It was stressed how important it is to keep the hen from fouling the nest if we


want clean eggs. A demonstration under ultra-violet light showed the horrified spectator what happens when dirty eggs are washed. The dirt in the solution smeared over the shell will spoil the keeping quality.
This is just one advance which producers, packing stations and wholesalers are pursuing which will add to the reputation of our home produce. I am glad to think that now over 90 per cent. of the eggs consumed in this country are home produced. We have no need to-day for further regulations by Government, whether comprised of the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, to safeguard consumers. The producers are doing this job and doing it as it should be done, because it is good business to provide what the housewives want.
I would say a word about the public being misled by descriptions of food. I am not at all happy about the scope which the ingenious advertiser and marketeer can use when he is selling a product which is a substitute for a dairy product. I am thinking, at the moment, not so much of butter as ice cream. One can buy a choc-bar today in a silver packet, with the word "milk" repeatedly written down the centre of the wrapping. I do not think that that ice cream has any milk in it at all. It is merely a milk chocolate coating that is taken to justify the label "milk". I hope that when the time comes—and it should not be long now—for us to look again at the Food Regulations, we shall make quite sure that if a foodstuff purports to be a dairy product—for instance, ice cream—it shall have genuine dairy produce in it and shall not contain a substitute product.
The substitute may be good stuff, such as vegetable oils—there is no harm in them—but the product is not what it purports to be. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture examines the regulations again, I hope that he will keep much in mind the need for the public to know quite clearly, by the labelling and the advertising, just what they are buying. Otherwise, it is fair neither to the housewife nor to the dairy producer.
In conclusion, I want again to stress that many of us—certainly those in one producing industry which has direct contact with consumers—are doing our

utmost to safeguard the consumers' interests. This is not because it would be against the law if we did not, but because it is common decency and good business to do so.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I often find it difficult to agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), although I assure him that it is for no lack of good will on my part, but I can now accord him a measure of agreement with what he has just said. I willingly admit that we can be overenthusiastic in seeking to safeguard the consumers. We should realise that when people shop they enjoy using their own judgment, and we should not seek unnecessarily to inhibit people doing that when we are seeking to save them from themselves. I also think that a nation that spends so much of its time filling in football pools must also contain an element of gambling, and we must recognise that when some people shop they gamble, even when they buy shoddy goods.
Having said that, and accepting that salutary caution, there are three objectives that we can quite properly seek to attain. The first is to reduce the cost of distribution, because we all pay for it and, moveover, it may mean a diversion of our national resources that the nation cannot afford. Secondly, we are entitled to protect ourselves against avoidable danger. Thirdly, we are entitled to give ourselves guidance when we go shopping.
As I have said, we should not, unless there is an element of danger, necessarily prevent people from selling shoddy goods, but we should make the sellers of those goods reveal the fact that they are shoddy. We should seek to ensure an element of fair play between shopper and shopkeeper.
Dealing, first, with the cost of distribution, which has affected the cost of living, I make these two points about foodstuffs, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We have a considerable and welcome extension of the pre-packaging of foodstuffs. That has to be paid for in the final price. That being so, we are entitled to drive for greater efficiency in distribution to cover the increased costs. The second factor—

Mrs. Jean Mann: Our usual safeguard used to be that the grocer took the time to put the poke on the scale and weigh it out in front of the customer. We have been told for years that the quick way, and the cheap way, is to run it along an assembly line in packaging it. Are we now to be told that that is actually a more expensive way?

Mr. Willey: No. I was saying that the prepacked article costs more than the article that is not prepacked. Therefore, there is a burden on the distributive industry to be more efficient, as my hon. Friend has indicated, in order to cover that cost, and, if we are to have pre-packing, we are entitled to new forms of distribution, such as the self-service shops.
My other point is that during the war, as we all know, the retail margins for foodstuffs were very tight indeed. We also know that since decontrol there has been a considerable increase of the margins. We do not know what that increase is, but I think we are entitled to some reply about it from the Government. If they cannot give that reply, we are entitled to expect them to take steps to find out what that increase is. As I say, we suspect that there has been a considerable increase in the margins. There is no real justification for it because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are very anxious to point out, there has been an increase in through-put, so there should not have been such a substantial increase in the margins at the same time.
My hon. Friend mentioned Utility products. I do not think we should exaggerate what we can do by way of Utility production, but we should recognise—and I hope that the Government will—that there are some things we can do. Backed by Government orders ensuring long runs, we might get cheaper blankets, cheaper children's clothing and shoes. That sort of commodity might well be provided much more cheaply. And I say this about standards. It is not only a question of providing better standards, but the standards themselves should provide a more efficient means of production. We should press for them, not only to get the standards themselves improved, but also to get cheaper goods.
My hon. Friend referred to advertising. I say at once that I have no objection to

flamboyant advertising. I am one of the few Members who travel by Tube, and I enjoy the contribution that advertising makes to the journey. I enjoy flamboyant advertising. I do not think that it really deceives anyone.
My objection to advertising concerns something much more important. Advertising is a very heavy on-cost on distribution. That on-cost is far too great, and we cannot overlook it. Again, in the United States they are finding that advertising is also affecting the national economy. It is not the actual needs of the people that are shaping the economy, but advertising which is dictating the needs of the people, creating the needs of the people, and affecting the whole national economy.
In this country we are living on such a tight economy that we cannot afford to allow that to happen. For that reason if for no other, we have to look very carefully at the new demands created by advertising and see how far they are socially necessary. In so far as it affects foodstuffs, I would say we should also see how far they are desirable nutritionally, and how far, in fact, they are going against higher nutritional standards.
The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned ice cream. I am not particularly upset by the description of what we now consume as ice cream as ice cream, but what I am concerned about is increasing the consumption of liquid milk. This is a legitimate concern. Knowing the milk production difficulties that farmers have been in over the last few years, it is quite legitimate that we should encourage greater consumption of milk through the medium of ice cream. The Government should have the courage to recognise that that it is desirable, now that we no longer have to rely on vegetable oils for the production of icecream to encourage consumption of milk through this medium.
So much for the cost of distribution. I turn, now, to protection. In retrospect, I believe that one of the appalling factors of our present civilisation will be the little regard we pay to the individual. We have the terrible toll on the roads, yet how little impact it has made on public conscience. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and others have repeatedly called


attention to the frightful toll of household accidents, yet what little impact that toll has had on the general public and on the manufacturers. We are entitled to be assured that all avoidable dangers will be avoided. We ought to be much more vigorous in ensuring this.
I should like to refer to detergents. My recollection is that when we had a catering trade working party it was suggested that there should be a committee set up to supervise the development of detergents. I should like to know what is to be done about that, because there are inherent dangers in the continued use of detergents. We are entitled to know whether we are properly safeguarded in using them.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the departmental committee reported on the effects of detergents and made it clear that there were great dangers to sewage disposal and sanitation works, even though there were some detergent producers on the committee? The Government have had the report about a year now, but nothing or very little has been done about it.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I share his anxiety. Whether or not we have grounds for feeling this anxiety, we are entitled to be assured that proper investigation is being made all the time while these new detergents are put on the market.
The Food and Drugs Act has been in operation for a few years, and it has been of considerable benefit in ensuring clean food, but we still have to provide for the registration of all catering establishments. The Government gave way on this under the pressure of what we then called the "dirty food lobby" and we have now discovered that that is the only effective step we can take to ensure that our restaurants are properly looked after. This is more than a matter of clean food. This is a question of decent standards of life. In fact, if we enforce standards of clean food in restaurants we shall have far better attention and service in them.
On the question of guidance to shoppers, as I have said, I do not object to shopkeepers selling shoddy goods provided their shoddiness is revealed; then, I think, we shall have fair buying between the shopkeeper and the shopper. Just as

we had the Food and Drugs Act, we had the Merchandise Marks Act a few years ago, and again in the light of experience we know that this ought to be strengthened.
Reference has been made to self-service. What self-service means is that there is much greater reliance upon package labelling and description. There is not a friendly shopkeeper between the customer and the packet to advise her to avoid buying a particular commodity in the light of complaints from customers. Therefore, we should pay more serious regard to package labelling.
I think, too—we argued this on the clean food Bill—that we are entitled to take much stricter measures on questions such as the composition of food. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made fun about the loaf which is sold in Canada which is covered with a wrapping on which is stated the constituents of a loaf of bread, but in fact we know that all sorts of steps are taken in the preparation of foodstuffs which ought to be revealed, so that the appropriate authorities may take steps to assure us whether what we consume is safe and healthy.
When we buy household goods and take them home, we do not know until we use them whether they are a good buy or not. We should ensure in every sort of way that proper description and labelling is an obligation upon the person who sells durable household goods, such as furniture and so on. In fact, this would be a safeguard to the manufacturer. When we buy clothing, for example, we are told how it should be treated, whether it should be dry-cleaned or washed.

Mr. F. A. Burden: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is done in a great many instances in the textile trade, and the habit is growing. It is a very good one.

Mr. Willey: I know that the habit is growing. I am pleading that we should encourage and press forward with the rapid growth of such habits.
I have not the time to deal with the many more ways in which we can provide guidance. I should like to mention two cardinal points which arise in a debate of this sort. First, there is a great deal of work to be done. The trouble is that at present much of it is being done


in a haphazard and piecemeal way. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that there should be a Ministry of Consumer Welfare. That may be a little too ambitious, but we certainly need some effective co-ordination of these methods.

Mr. George Darling: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who said that this kind of labelling is done by the best firms—a fact with which I agree—surely unscrupulous competitors can copy the labelling and put it on inferior goods. That is the danger.

Mr. Willey: I can only agree with my hon. Friend and say that this is one of the important factors, that the good manufacturer should not be put at a disadvantage. He should not be made to suffer unfair competition.
The second factor which emerges from a debate such as this is that the Government lack the drive, initiative and vigour to deal with this problem. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade of one or two things which have happened under this Government. We have had the clean food Bill and we had the sell-out in another place. That was merely being weak-kneed in the light of representations from sectional interests. As some of my hon. Friends know, we went through exactly the same experience on the Slaughterhouses Bill, the Government again giving way to sectional interests. That, of course, is not surprising from the party opposite. What we want is not a weak-kneed approach in the light of sectional lobbies but greater resource, initiative and imagination in providing this service.
Reference has been made to broadcasting. I should like the B.B.C. to retaliate against commercial advertising by giving a good consumer service on the B.B.C. I would like people to turn from commercial television to the B.B.C. for consumer advice about the goods which are being advertised on commercial television. I concede at once that when we talk about a vigorous approach, it applies equally to the nationalised industries. I would not pretend that the consumer councils have been entirely satisfactory in the nationalised industries. We must do more. I think that yesterday's debate illustrated that there exists a tenderness towards this matter generally. I believe that some

hon. Members opposite are now becoming tender towards the nationalised industries because they do not want to encourage individuals to speak up against industries generally.

Mr. Donald Wade: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he had in mind when he referred to consumer interests being catered for on the B.B.C.? Surely, if he refers to the specific goods which have been advertised on I.T.V., it would merely be another form of advertising; or does he suggest that some alternative goods should be mentioned on the B.B.C.?

Mr. Willey: I made the point in broad terms. What I would like the B.B.C. to do would be to give time to consumer advice organisations to reach a much wider public.

Mrs. Mann: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that if the B.B.C. were to give any more time to that purpose there would not be nearly so much time for propagating the Liberal Party point of view, which would be unknown but for the B.B.C.?

Mr. Willey: If we are to have more time for safeguarding consumers, I would even allow more advertising of the Liberal Party.
In very different circumstances, the Labour Government tried to ensure fair shares. We are now trying to ensure fair prices and to ensure that the customer gets value for money. I want to do more than that. I want to encourage not only fair prices but decent design and high standards. We are talking about very mundane things, but these are the things which shape our civilisation. I hope that we shall not only encourage the Consumer Advisory Services but use our influence to see that the things which we use in daily life are well designed and pleasant to be with.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will forgive me if do not go along with him in his arguments, but, broadly, I was in agreement with very much of what he said.
I was very interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in opening the


debate. The Committee and many consumers will be glad to hear that we are shortly to be told the Labour Party's policy on the protection of the public and consumer standards and the quality labelling of all goods which reach reasonable standards. It is very difficult to determine exactly where a reasonable standard ends and an unreasonable standard begins. It is all a question of the price range which the public wish to pay and are able to pay.
I hope that before it produces this policy document the Labour Party will have considered all those points. I hope that when it puts this policy forward it will advise the public, who are not to be the arbiters of what is reasonable and what is not. It is a very interesting subject, to which we all attach great importance.
I understand that the Labour Party state that in the production of children's goods the manufacture of any goods below a certain standard will be prohibited. I hope that in saying that hon. Members opposite will not deny the opportunity to many poor people who want to buy garments for children which, perhaps, will not last long, and who do so because their children are growing rapidly. All those things must be taken into consideration.
We know that there has been vigilance by some back-bench hon. Members opposite on consumer standards in the last few years, but there has been equal vigilance on this side of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was at one time Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government, and he will remember that since I entered the House in 1950 I have spoken on these subjects on many occasions. Although hon. Members opposite have not admitted it today, I hope to be able to show that much more has been done by this Government to ensure the standards of goods than was done by the Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North shakes his head, but he will have an opportunity of listening to what happened when the Labour Party had this job to do and what has happened since.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the hon. Member tell us how many Questions he or anyone else has asked,

for instance, about the Hodgson Committee's proposals in the last year?

Mr. Burden: No, I cannot answer that off-hand, but I will read in a moment a quotation from the last Merchandise Marks Act. It was I who proposed the Amendment which gave force to the Act and which has been the basis of many prosecutions which have taken place since. That is some measure of the success that I have had in endeavouring to protect the public.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford) rose—

Mr. Burden: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way at this stage. I have not yet made the quotation. The problem of the Labour Party and of the way in which it intends to fix the standard of goods and to decide how those standards shall be determined is not made easier by the movement towards European free trade. It might create difficulty, and I hope that in the preparation of future policy the Labour Party will ensure that it does not cause considerably greater difficulty in bringing about the trade fusion which we all believe to be in the best interests of our countries.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North shook his head when I said that much more had been done since the present Government came into power to preserve the public from exploitation by unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers than was done by the Labour Government. Let me read what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said about wool cloth on 10th February, 1949, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
… woven wool cloth is material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of wool or animal fibre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 510.]
It did not have to be wool as we know it; it could be any animal fibre and yet could still be described as wool cloth, provided that it contained not less than 15 per cent. of wool or animal fibre in its make-up.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could the hon. Member say in what context my right hon. Friend made that remark?

Mr. Burden: He was answering a question about what should rightly be described as wool cloth.

Mr. Osborne: It was the Socialist standard.

Mr. Burden: It was the standard set by the Labour Government. I have not yet finished with quotations from remarks by the right hon. Member for Huyton about wool cloth. On 24th March, 1949, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the right hon. Gentleman said:
… the term 'wool cloth' should not be used in Statutory Instruments, to refer to any cloth containing more than 15 per cent. of wool …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 46.]
Thus on one occasion he said that a cloth can be called wool cloth if it contains not less than 15 per cent. of wool. If it contains 85 per cent. of cotton and 15 per cent. wool it can be called wool cloth. Later, however, the right hon. Gentleman went further and said, in effect, that it need not have any wool in it at all and could still be described as wool cloth. Those are facts which must be borne in mind when hon. Members opposite make strictures on this party about consumer standards. We are quite prepared to accept them, but it seems to me that they must accept responsibility for their own actions when they were the Government of the country.

Mr. Coldrick: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was replying in 1949 surely he was merely giving information about the standards which had been laid down by the Coalition Government. They had not been changed.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. This was four years after the Labour Government had come to power—four years during which they had been responsible. They must accept responsibility for those four years after the advent of Socialism and the end of the war.

Sir L. Plummer: Sir L. Plummer rose—

Mr. Burden: I have given way twice and I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I now proceed. I shall be happy to give way a little later, but I hope that I may be allowed to continue for a while with my speech.
In the standards of retail practice—which is probably the basis of attack today—the Socialists now claim that

wool cloth should be a cloth containing not less than 90 per cent. wool. I am a clothing manufacturer and interested in these descriptions. I came back from the war and found cloth described as wool—after the advent of the party opposite in Government—that had so much fibre in it that one could push a finger through the cloth without any difficulty. On 14th December, 1950, the right hon. Member for Huyton was asked whether he would ensure
that utility wool cloth made partly from fibre and any garments made therefrom are clearly marked with the composition of the cloth.
He replied:
No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1326.]
If it is right for hon. Members on both sides today to demand that cloth shall bear the composition, then it was equally right in 1950. The Parliamentary Secretary of those days, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), in replying to the then Member for Totnes, said:
I am hoping that it will be possible some time in the future to define 'wool cloth' a little better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th December. 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1297.]
That is the sum total of what was done by the party opposite. They were pressed by Members of my party to label the goods so that there should be no possibility of the consuming public misunderstanding. I can appreciate the difficulty that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was in, because he is a cloth manufacturer. He was torn between his duty to the party opposite as a Parliamentary Secretary and his honesty and desire as a woollen manufacturer to ensure that wool cloth should be properly described.
In his reply to which I referred a moment ago on the question of description, the right hon. Member for Huyton said that the prevailing description of cloth had proved satisfactory. How could it be satisfactory to describe as a wool cloth one that could contain only 15 per cent. of wool?
I know that all hon. Members regret these things. We should like to see a better description given to these goods, but hon. Members opposite should not argue with their tongue in their cheek and say that the Conservative Party is


guilty while they are completely whitewashed over these things. Hon. Members opposite really did mislead the public over a long period.
The Retail Trading Standards Association is an organisation that has often been quoted by hon. Members on both sides. It is an organisation that has been set up by the big retail stores. Its governing body comprises directors and executives of those big retail stores, but it has an independent operation. It is provided with funds by stores and retailers, but its function is to ensure that the public are not misled by descriptions and that dishonesty in description by retailers is at once prosecuted to the utmost degree by the association.
It has done much good work. I think it should be made clear that it is an organisation that was founded by retailers in order to ensure that the public get a square deal. That cannot be stressed too strongly. It proves that the vast majority of traders in this country are highly reputable people and are determined to give the public good value, and a square deal. It is doing its utmost to ensure that the black sheep are exposed and dealt with by the courts of law.
The association in its booklet says:
In all other cases other than that of sheep's wool"—
and this is in direct contradiction to what the right hon. Member for Huyton said when he was at the Board of Trade—
it is recommended that the word 'wool' should be abandoned and the material be known by the name of the fleece from which it is made.
I think there would be no quarrel with that, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite would support it. I am also certain that the hon. Member for Rossendale would do his utmost at all times to ensure that a label is affixed now that he is a Member of the Opposition—and I hope he will remain in Opposition for a long time—and not called upon to make these decisions.
In the last two years of the Socialist Government, there were a series of debates criticising the fall in quality of Utility merchandise. We all know about that fall, and the then Government's attitude to wool cloth—and, frankly, there was no standard of quality for wool

cloth during the whole of the time of the Labour Government—was one of the reasons for that decline. The word "worsted", which traditionally has been known to define a certain quality of wool from this country which contained at least 90 per cent. wool, was permitted under the party opposite to include in its make-up increasing quantities of cotton. That was a very bad thing for the worsted manufacturers of this country and throughout the world. A great deal of damage was done to many of our manufacturers during those times of shortage. When foreigners wanted to buy it they thought that it was what it had always traditionally been known to be.
Prayers were moved by hon. Members who were in Opposition, including the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), and myself, about these falls in quality, but nothing very much was done. One hon. Member opposite, who has campaigned very forcefully about standards in cloth, really gave the answer in a series of articles. I think they were written by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry. South (Miss Burton). She has campaigned very strongly and with great credit, as has the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), although I disagreed with her most strongly in her remarks about Purchase Tax. Both hon. Ladies have campaigned quite nobly in the interest of consumer goods. But so have Members on all sides of the Committee; let us be honest about it. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie supported the chief culprit, the right hon. Member for Huyton, when he was President of the Board of Trade. I wish that she had objected as strongly and as often then as she has since.

Mrs. Slater: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) was not in the House.

Mr. Burden: I am referring to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. She was in the House then.

Mrs. Mann: I am here in the flesh to reply, and I can say that we had the Utility standard and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who is not here today, has constantly asked for a minimum standard.

Mr. Burden: Yes; I am coming to that in a moment. I was charging the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that she acquiesced with these loose descriptions when she was supporting the Labour Government, but now she is objecting most strongly. Of course, I had hoped that she would object as strongly when she was supporting the Government as she does now.
The Merchandise Marks Act was passed by the Conservative Government and I had the privilege of proposing the Amendment which put meat into it.

Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Member is too modest.

Mr. Burden: It is not a question of modesty. The hon. Member laughs, but he will know that there is a good deal in his career about which he might have been a little more modest—ground-nuts, for instance. I have never been engaged in such a failure as that.

Sir L. Plummer: I do not know on what the hon. Member bases his remarks concerning my past career. If he says that he has never had such a failure, he cannot be listening to himself speaking this afternoon.

Mr. Burden: From the hon. Member's past record, he is the last person whom I should ask whether what I was doing was a success or failure.
Section 1 (1) of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, states that Section 3 of the 1887 Act
shall be amended by inserting after paragraph (a)—
(aa) as to the standard of quality of any goods according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade, or
(ab) as to the fitness or purpose, strength, performance or behaviour of any goods …'.
It goes on to deal with the question of misdirection in advertisements, and so on. It is through that Act and that Section that a great many of the prosecutions have taken place since 1953.
As for a comparison between what has happened since the present Government have been in office and what happened under the former Government, I can do no better than quote briefly from articles written by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, whose absence today we all regret. In "Housewives' Choice",

written in the first of three articles in the Daily Herald, the hon. Lady said:
Before"—
that was, before the advent of the Merchandise Marks Act—
it was possible for a manufacturer to sell dresses as fadeless, raincoats as waterproof, fabrics as washable, when these claims were false.
All that was legal during the five years in office of the party opposite, which took no measures whatever to stop it. It remained for a Tory Government to amend the earlier Merchandise Marks Act to stop all that. In the hon. Lady's own words, this is what the present Government have done.
The hon. Lady went on to say:
By now the overboosting of goods and the printing of misleading descriptions should have been stopped. That was the idea of the law anyway. For instance, you can no longer call an article with a small percentage of nylon in it 'nylon and wool'",
as could be done when the right hon. Member for Huyton was at the Board of Trade. To use the hon. Lady's words,
You must call it 'wool and nylon'.
Equally, if there is a greater percentage of cotton than wool in the make-up of a material, it must always be described by stating first the commodity which has the greatest share in its make-up. In the hon. Lady's words,
You cannot call a 'showerproof' coat a 'watenproof'. Textiles are more accurately described. So is furniture in which leather is used only in pant.
Great strides have been made since the Conservative Party came into power and still more has to be done. We are justified in pointing out that much more has been done by the present Government than was done by the party opposite. It is not right for hon. Members opposite to come here and say that we have done nothing at all. Their own case is completely exploded by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, especially in view of the record of the right hon. Member for Huyton.
I believe that the play of competition is much more effective than any legislation that any Government may bring forward to improve the quality of merchandise. As I have said, I am engaged in the manufacture of clothing. I have no hesitation in saying that if hon. and right hon. Members, from both sides, looked at the shops today and did some


shopping, they would find that the quality—at least in the clothing industry, of which I speak with some authority—has certainly increased tremendously during recent years, that prices have dropped considerably and that buyers have been much more selective and are continuing to be much more selective in the merchandise they are buying.
I am convinced that if trade organisations got together, they would be able to wipe out the occasional black sheep. The broad strata of manufacturers of a great many of our goods are determined to give the best possible value they can and the public will exert every possible influence to ensure that they do. If the buyers are to retain their position and their turnover, they are forced to insist upon good value and good quality in every way. When we talk of the occasional black sheep, we know that they exist not only in the world of commerce, but that even this honourable House of Commons has had an occasional black sheep as well. Those things cannot be guarded against.
The Board of Trade can at least co-operate with the trade organisations in assisting prosecutions and itself prosecuting where there are considerable violations of the Merchandise Marks Act and of the proper behaviour in commerce. Not only does this apply to the sale of merchandise, but there comes into it also the question of the relations of certain firms with the buying public. I wish to say a word about this and I hope that trade associations will take it up. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows about what I am going to say.
Recently, in my constituency, I was visited by an elderly widow, who informed me that she could not purchase less than ½lb. of butter from a certain multiple store, which had told her that it was illegal to sell less than that weight. I told my constituent that that was wrong and I telephoned a director of the firm in London. He blandly informed me that what my constituent had told me was correct. I communicated with my hon. Friend about it.
The position, I understand, is that a shopper may demand whatever weight he wants provided that it is weighed in front of him or, if it is pre-packed, the weight of the contents is clearly marked upon the package. In view of this, I wrote to the firm in question and asked for an

assurance that if it was the policy of the firm to sell not less than ½lb. of butter, the firm would admit that this was its own policy and was not a Government order. I was given that assurance and undertaking. I consider it very reprehensible that any firm should behave in that way.
We know that pre-packing is a good thing to ensure cleanliness, but I hope that if firms, for their own convenience, fix their own minimum quantities which exceed the minimum quantities that they are permitted by Statute to sell, they will make it clear that the choice is their own and has nothing to do with any orders from the Government. I make the point because I hope that this sort of behaviour will be stopped. There will, I think, be no further cause for complaint from the firm which I have mentioned and I hope that the butter trade will make it clear to its members that this is not the sort of thing that the counry likes to hear about.
I am sorry if I have taken quite a long time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) should not be in such haste. He speaks a great deal, and he will have his opportunity. In any case, I understand that there are only two hon. Members on this side of the Committee who wish to speak. I felt that this was a matter of very great seriousness. It is something of which I have had a certain amount of experience, and if I have kept the Committee for rather a long time I hope that, in view of the importance of the debate, I shall be forgiven.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: To avoid the need for the kind of apology which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has just made, may I say that I intended to propose when we had a debate some time ago, out of which we set up a Committee on Procedure, that when back benchers got up to speak they should announce the time when they would sit down, and that if they went on for a longer period, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman should call them to order. I propose to sit down before 5.30. In order that I may get on with the debate without wasting time, I would say to the hon. Member for Gillingham that, by my definition, quotations out of context come under the heading of false labelling.
Much has been said about quality standards and I think that in regard to manufactured goods this is a problem with which we have to concern ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, it is not so much a matter of establishing quality, although that in itself will be difficult enough, but something has to be done, particularly in the manufacture of textiles from new fibres and the curious mixtures that now come along, to tell the shopper what has gone into the cloth or whatever the manufacture may be, and what its performance will be. I think that it is with the performance that we are primarily concerned.

Mrs. Slater: How she must use it.

Mr. Darling: Yes, whether it is washable, whether she has to have it dry cleaned, and so on. So we are faced with the problem of laying down specifications. That will be very difficult indeed, but I do not think that we should run away from this problem. In other industries the British Standards Institution specifications are very important and manufacturers of heavy machinery, engineering equipment and so on take full advantage of the B.S.I. standards and specifications. When they announce to customers in foreign countries that they manufacture to B.S.I. specifications, that is a guarantee of quality. I think that if, in spite of the difficulties which I admit right away, we can get this kind of B.S.I. standard for consumer goods we should be doing a great deal to help the consumers of this country.
As the hon. Member for Gillingham said in an interjection earlier in the debate, in many of the trades in this field at the moment the best manufacturers are working to good specifications and good standards. I think that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will try to get into the debate and that I shall be in order if I pay tribute to him in this matter—he can correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that he will not correct me on this. I know that he is engaged in the manufacture of high quality goods which carry trade marks, which customers have come to understand are a guarantee of quality. There are other manufacturers doing the same thing. The Co-operative movement's marks are a guarantee of standards.
I think that we have to concede that the best manufacturers do this on behalf

of their own trading position, their own reputation and also on behalf of the consumers to protect them from the more unscrupulous competitors whom they have to face. It is no use these days asking the housewife when she goes shopping to judge by appearance the quality of the things which she buys. The hon. Member for Louth knows very well the tricks that go on in his own trade; manufacturers who tease up fibres to give an impression of high quality stuff when, in point of fact, they are weakening something already inferior in quality, and when the housewife washes the dress, the fabric goes into holes right away.
The hon. Member for Gillingham said that competition will deal with this problem, and that, if there is free competition among manufacturers, traders and shopkeepers, the housewife will be able to choose the high-quality stuff, and the traders will produce that high-quality stuff in competitive business. I have never believed that competition always has had that result. There are always bad people in every competitive society, and I think that good manufacturers, and the public, have to be protected against them. That is one reason why we must try to lay down specifications if we can.
If there is general agreement that this should be done and that we should try to get specifications for consumer goods, obviously the B.S.I. must have more money and more staff for the job. I believe that in this matter the trade associations, as well as the Government, have an important part to play. I think that, so far as it can be done, it should be the trade associations themselves which should try to lay down the specifications and standards. The B.S.I. is representative of the trade associations that need B.S.I. specifications, and the trade associations are there. I think that some Government money must go into this—some already does but it is admittedly inadequate—and the matter should be looked into.
We want the best manufacturers in each trade to try to lay down specifications for consumer goods so that customers will know just what they are buying—that is the point—what the stuff is made of, what it will do, what its performance will be and how consumers have to deal with it. It follows that it


is not only necessary to lay down specifications but to give the public some information in one way or another about the products which it buys.
The range of products available to the public will become wider and wider, by way of new cloth production, new synthetic fibres and so on. The range of products will get wider and we cannot expect the housewife to be learned and knowledgeable about all the goods which she is called upon to buy. The more information that we can give the housewife, the better.
We have in many other respects laid down standards. We have had to do it in the food trades in the interests of hygiene and good health, and in such Measures as the Food and Drugs Acts, the Slaughterhouses Act and others, and in prosecuting people who deliberately mislead the public by putting false labelling upon their merchandise. So we have a body of legislation already in existence for the protection of the consumer. As far as I can see this problem in its wider aspects, I do not think that we need much more legislation. I think that we have plenty already if it is properly applied.
The main problem which we are up against is that no Government Department is primarily interested in this debate. We know very well that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, takes some interest in it, but his interest is a narrow one. It is not concerned with food and drugs and it is not concerned with anything outside the sphere of activities of the Board of Trade. The Vote which we have before us mentions the consumer protection services in five Government Departments, but actually there is a sixth, which I do not suppose could be got in the Vote on this occasion, and that is the Home Office, which is responsible for some parts of the legislation on poisons and for the Shops Act. We have these Government Departments playing about with this problem. I do not think that we can get the standards which we ought to have within our present legislation properly applied, and protection of the consumer properly dealt with, so long as the job is split up between these Government Departments.
Some time ago some of us proposed that there should be a Ministry to bring

together these consumer protection sections of the various Departments. We are not adamant about a Ministry in our proposals, but at least there should be a Minister, even if he is only a junior Minister of State inside the Board of Trade. The important thing is that these consumer protection jobs should come together.
I should like to give an example of the way in which these things work at the moment. Whenever we debate the subject we usually talk about manufactured foodstuffs and manufactured consumer goods, but the problem is wider. There are, for example, the things that gardeners buy. A little while ago a case came to the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the sale of grass seed. The complaint was made by a competitor that there were weeds in the grass seed sold to a buyer as weed-free. When it was examined as a result of the complaint weeds were found to be in the seed. Those who were buying grass seed under the impression that if they threw it on the ground they would have a beautiful lawn without weeds found that they actually had the weeds as well.
The consumer must be protected in such cases and so must the manufacturer of the good grass seed, but this is such a fiddling little thing for the Ministry of Agriculture. That Ministry is concerned with milk and egg production and all the other great farming activities. The sale of grass seed in little packets to a little man who has a handkerchief of ground which he wants to make into a lawn is something which one would not expect the Ministry of Agriculture to be terribly concerned about. We say, therefore, that matters such as this ought to come within the scope of a Minister or a Department primarily concerned with the protection of the consumer.

Sir James Duncan: In fact, grass seed is protected by the Seeds Act, 1920. Whenever a farmer buys seed for farming purposes he not only receives a certificate of the nature of the seed mixture but also a guarantee of purity.

Mr. Darling: That is perfectly true, and the point that I was about to make was that obviously the Minister of Agriculture could have prosecuted under existing legislation but, because this was not the kind of quantity involved or the


kind of operation in which a farmer engages, the Ministry was not so interested as it would have been in a case concerning a farmer. I believe that is a sound point, and that these consumer protection services should be brought together.
I will repeat my promise that I will sit down before 5.30 because I wish to emphasise that it is desirable that hon. Members should announce in advance the limit they have set to their own speeches.
When we are discussing these matters we should be clear in pointing out that we do not want to apply a lot of regulations to the consumer. We want to do this job as easily as possible and, at the manufacturing end, with the full co-operation of the manufacturers and trade associations concerned. If a person wants to buy Inferior goods he should have complete freedom to do so. What we insist upon is that the stuff should be labelled inferior and that the prices should be appropriate to the quality.
There is no need of a great deal of legislation to ensure that, nor do we need to set up a bureaucracy for the purpose. We have existing legislation, and if we brought together into one Government Department these questions of consumer protection we could manage to do the job with a smaller staff than that which is now scattered about so widely. The policing should be the job of the trade associations. It should be made possible for consumers to bring forward their complaints more easily when they have been gypped and swindled by an unscrupulous manufacturer. They should be in a position to make a complaint and have the matter remedied.
Means should be found whereby the consumer can make her complaint to a Ministry, which will handle the matter if there is a prima facie case that she has been swindled in some way. We should lay down that prosecution or action can take place only if the consumer has gone back to the trader and the trader has refused to do something about it. If that were widely known, I think that it would be found that, to avoid the prospect of prosecution, traders would be very willing to deal with the complaint sensibly and to the satisfaction of the consumer. But the sanction must be there, and people must know that it would be used. One of our criticisms of the Merchandise

Marks Act is that far too few prosecutions take place. Our proposal to bring all these things together would deal with that difficulty, too.
I hope that at least the debate will draw attention to the problems of consumer protection and that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, and he tells us what he is trying to do to anticipate the Weights and Measures Bill which was promised so long ago and has not yet been introduced, he will not dress the new regulations up in the form of a housewives' charter or anything of that kind, because that would be far below anything that we would expect from a decent Government.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) for the nice things that he said about my companies and the goods which I produce. My experience of trade has taught me that one cannot produce good quality and bad quality goods in the same works. One has either to produce all good quality or all bad quality goods. I hope that it will not happen, but there is a great danger of an impression being created by the debate that, as a whole, British industry produces shoddy goods. That would be doing a great disservice to our country. I beg hon. Members to be careful not to overplay this card, because 20 per cent. of everything that we produce is sold abroad and we live on those exports. If we cry stinking fish about the things we produce, we shall be doing the gravest injury to our workers.
Quite an appreciable amount of the consumer goods in that section of trade in which I have certain interests is sold to Americans and Canadian visitors who are coming into this country in increasing numbers. They come here and buy because quality goods made in England or made in Scotland are still the hallmark of the best, and only the best will do. We do our country an immense disservice if we suggest that we are deliberately selling shoddy goods which the visitor who conies to our shores is so glad to buy and so proud to take home with the comment, "I bought this in England".
On Monday I was in Doncaster at the board meeting of a big engineering firm of which I am a director. We were discussing the problem of exports to


South Africa and the possibility of establishing a business there. I asked a representative of the firm who had come from South Africa to discuss the problem of the prospects. He said that the Italians were exporting valves to South Africa at a price 50 per cent. below ours. The valves were not nearly as good as ours, but they did the job.
Let us not cry stinking fish about our people and their output. We produce fine goods in this country. I am proud of what we produce and of what our workers do, and we do them a great disservice if we say otherwise. Nearly forty years ago, when I was an external student at the London School of Economics, I was taught that one of the first things that a buyer should remember was caveat emptor.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who, I am sorry to say, is not present, said, among other things, that in a free society we could not save the buyer from his own stupidity and folly. Under Communism that can be done, but not in a free society. In a free society there is a limit to which one can prevent men and women being foolish with their money. The old adage that fools and their money are soon parted is as true today as ever.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also said—and I put this to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—that we ought to look into the increased costs of distribution. I believe that that is true. I think that the labour engaged in the distributive trades has grown dangerously over the last twenty years and that something could be done in that respect.

Mr. William Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. Osborne: No, I am sorry, because I promised to be brief, and I have been in the Chamber all day.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also made the point that, since the end of rationing, profit margins especially in the food industry, had substantially increased. I earn my living in many ways, one as chairman of two wholesale grocery companies. Our recent report showed that our gross profit was 8·47 per cent., out of which we have to

pay wages and everything else. Our net profit, subject to tax, is 1 per cent. That is typical of the profit made by wholesale grocers throughout the country. There is not a lot of margin there, and I ask hon. Members to bear that fact in mind.
The last thing which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said was that he thought we were spending too much on advertising and that the costs of advertising were being put on the article, which they must be, of course, thus putting up the cost of living. There is something to be said about that, but it is a matter which can be pushed too far.
I remember listening with great glee, before the war, to a record by Gracie Fields which said, "Shop at the Co-op". Gracie Fields was advertising the "Coop." We can do a disservice by saying wipe out all advertising, though I think that it is a matter that might be investigated.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who provoked me into taking part in the debate, said two things which I want to rebut. First, he said that the "Co-op." was safeguarding the consumer by its efficiency, its fairness and by the magnificent way in which it was conducting its trading, which was better than the way in which private industry was operating.

Mr. G. Darling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Osborne: Do not say that. I have read the recent report, signed by the Leader of the Opposition, which condemns out of hand the incompetence, the inefficiency and the backwardness of the Co-operative management. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members should read the report, but if they have not the time to go through its 150 pages, and they want a summary of it, then I beg them to look at the summary given in the News Chronicle. It was devastating.

Mr. Dodds: The hon. Member has not read the report.

Mr. Osborne: I have read the whole report. The hon. Gentleman should not make statements which he cannot prove.
The report was a devastating condemnation by the Leader of the Opposition of "Co-op." trading. Therefore, I think it is a little unfair for the hon. Gentleman to throw the co-operatives at us when


the leaders of his own party have said how grossly inefficient the Co-operative movement is. That does not detract from the social value of the Co-operative movement over the last hundred years.
The other thing I want to rebut is this. The hon. Member for Rossendale, starting with what I considered to be rather an overdone and unjustified sneer at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, said that in 1952 my right hon. Friend promised that he would double the standard of life of the people—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: 1954.

Mr. Osborne: —and that all that he had actually done was to double prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members will be able to see that in HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will tell him what my hon. Friend actually said.

Mr. Osborne: Then I withdraw that, but the hon. Gentleman did say that little or nothing had been done to increase in those years the standard of living of the people.
That is so demonstrably false that in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I want to give the Committee some facts. I have here material for a letter which I intended sending to the Daily Telegraph. The statistics contained in it were produced for me by the statistician in the Library, so that we can take them as being fairly good.
What do we mean by increasing the standard of living? First, I suppose, we mean food. What have we done between 1951 and 1957 in the matter of food?

Mr. Jay: We must get the facts right. It was in 1954 that the Home Secretary made the statement. Therefore, we want the figures from 1954, not 1951, to today.

Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman must look up those figures for himself. I have my figures, which I propose to use.
The Committee will see that the biggest rise in the graph took place in the years 1954–57. If, when the debate is over, the right hon. Gentleman likes to come to the Library with me, I will go through the figures with him. I cannot be fairer than that.
How much do we eat as a nation? I will take just the five main foodstuffs. In 1951, we consumed 624,000 tons of beef. Last year, we consumed 799,000 tons. The consumption of mutton went up from 130,000 tons to 199,000 tons, and pork from 93,000 tons to 379,000 tons. The consumption of eggs went up from 796 million dozen to 966 million dozen. The consumption of milk went up from 1,790 million gallons to 2,199 million gallons, and the consumption of sugar went up from 1,929,000 tons to 3,273,000 tons. I think that these figures for food alone would justify the claim of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
To the people who love their tobacco and who regard their standard of life partly in terms of that commodity, I would point out that its consumption, despite the scare of cancer, has gone up—not in terms of money—from 287 million lb. to 304 million lb.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Shocking.

Mr. Osborne: The amount of whisky and spirits consumed has risen by 9.96 million proof gallons to 12.6 million proof gallons. Therefore, on that front my right hon. Friend was fully justified in saying that within a period of time he hoped to double the standard of life in the country.

Mr. Fernyhough: No.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The hon. Member should not seek to take part in the debate without first rising to his feat.

Mr. Osborne: Another thing by which we can judge our standard of life is the clothes we wear. In 1951, 119 million pairs of boots and shoes were sold, compared with 133 million pairs last year. Hon. Ladies will be interested to know that in 1951, 94 million pairs of nylon stockings were sold as compared with 207 million pairs last year. The number of men's shirts, and so on, increased from 46·2 million to 54·48 million. That shows that we are doing the nation a disservice when we pretend that we are not doing as well as is, in fact, the case.
I do not want to weary the Committee with too many figures, but I want to give several more. Another indication of the increase in the standard of living is the increase in the number of people able


to take holidays abroad. In 1951, the figure was estimated at 1,100,000, whereas last year it was 1,900,000. Another standard of judgment is the number of workers who have holidays with pay. When he was Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) said that there were nearly 20 million workers who enjoyed holidays with pay. Today, the number is more than 24 million.
I claim that the standard of living has increased materially in the last few years and my final figure also shows that. Despite the undoubted improvements in our standard of living, the amount of money left over after those increases have been paid for has been infinitely greater than it was in 1951. The figures are startling. The figures for small savings are that the amounts invested in building societies totalled £97 million in 1951, as against £165 million in 1957; National Savings were only £1 million in 1951, and were up to £70 million last year; the amount deposited with provident societies increased from £44 million to £100 million; bank deposits were down by £26 million in 1951 and up last year by £81 million; life assurance premiums increased from £112 million to £300 million. The total savings of small savers last year were £716 million against £228 million in 1951.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was, therefore, fully justified in saying that we would increase our standard of living in twenty-five years. Indeed, we have already materially begun the process and I hope that when hon. Members have studied the figures—and the House of Commons is always fair-minded in its acceptance of facts—that sneer will not be repeated.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member has often referred to the need to increase production. Does he not agree that production in the period he has mentioned did not rise by anything like the increases which he mentioned? If the standard of living depends on increasing production, how are his figures borne out?

Mr. Osborne: The increase in national production is exceedingly difficult to calculate, since it provides for arbitrary figures for the production of people like postmen, policemen and school teachers.

However, to take the steel industry, there has been an astonishing increase in production since 1951, and the increase in textiles, an industry with which I am associated, has been large. If the hon. Member cares to come with me to Doncaster, to the works which I mentioned earlier, I will show him the figures. The British people are doing a magnificent job and we do them a great disservice by pretending that they are not.

5.45 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: We must give credit to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) at least for working reasonably hard on his homework. In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), if she were here today to answer some of the charges made against her and some of the things said in support of the Government, she would say that on innumerable occasions she has asked the President of the Board of Trade to bring prosecutions where goods have not been of the standards declared on the labels. My hon. Friend has repeatedly put questions about cases on which the President of the Board of Trade has refused to take action. The number of prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts is nowhere near the number of accusations which have been made and which should have resulted in prosecutions.
The Vote which we are discussing has a very wide scope and includes five Ministries, which means that there are five Ministries dealing with consumer protection. We need to have consumer protection integrated under one Ministry rather than under five. That is why those of us concerned with the problem and those of us in the Co-operative movement who have been considering the matter for a long time have advocated that we should have at least one junior Minister, if we cannot get any more, responsible for consumer protection.
The world of shopping in which we live today is very different from that of before the war. I remember the time when we ran study classes in the Co-operative movement for our employees, not to show them how to sell goods, but to explain to them in great detail of what the commodities were made. That was so that they could explain to the consumer what was in the commodity being


sold. With that knowledge, they could help consumers to buy a good product and to use the product the right way when once it had been purchased.
Today, the problem is altogether different. We are now living in an age when scientific development has been such that it is no longer possible to make a shopper as knowledgeable about what is in a commodity as were our great-grandmothers. If any hon. Lady remembers going shopping with her mother, she will remember that when her mother bought a shirt, a sheet or a towel, one of the first things she did was to rub it to see whether she was getting linen, or some linen with a great deal of dressing. She knew that if she bought an article which had a great deal of dressing in it, then the first time that she put it in the wash it would go limp and wear away very quickly. That was one reason why poorer housewives, when buying tablecloths in the old days, bought a grey twill which they knew would be serviceable and which when boiled would become white.
Most housewives going shopping today do not use that simple method of testing—hon. Members can go into the shops and watch. Not only is the modern housewife confronted with simple cotton or linen, but with synthetic materials about which she does not know and about some of which even the shopkeeper does not know. Unless she has some protection in the form of guidance, she may well wash the material in the old-fashioned way and ruin it in the first wash, because of the synthetic material. That was not a problem with the linen and cotton which our grandmothers used to buy. From that angle alone, because the whole nature of the materials which the shopper is sold may have changed considerably, consumer protection is more than ever necessary.
There is the other factor, that there has also been a change in shopping methods. More and more, self-service is being extended, and, therefore, the shopper who goes into the self-service stores can be tempted very easily, by the fact that the goods are on show and easy to get at, to buy commodities which look attractive but which may not be serviceable. It is quite true that the best of our self-service stores try to maintain a standard in the commodities which they sell, but we have also a lot of second-rate

stores, and a great amount of development is now taking place in that way.
In some respects at the present time, and particularly in foods, drugs and other commodities of that kind, the shopper's only protection is to buy a branded commodity, and that does not always mean that she is getting protection. She can buy some branded commodities by which she can be as easily deluded as she can be in buying some of the unmarked ones. Even on some of our branded goods we need a tremendous amount of supervision and protection for the consumer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said he related shopping almost to gambling. I do not want the shoppers ever to feel that they are gambling when they go shopping, but I think there is another factor, and that is the time factor. The amount of time which one now has in which to go shopping is considerably reduced as compared with the time when our grandmothers went shopping. Many women now have to go out to work, and the time which they have for shopping is very much reduced. When my mother went shopping, it was a day out; she could spend her time making shopkeepers bring down umpteen things for her to see when she had already made up her mind that she would buy the article she was first shown. That was part of their shopping in those days. [An HON. MEMBER: "Technique."] It was not only technique; she was having a day out.
When we go shopping today we have a very limited time, especially in the case of the woman who goes to work. Her problem is that she wants to be sure that in the limited time which she has for her shopping she will do it profitably in regard to the commodities she buys. Therefore, I do not want to see any opportunity for housewives to gamble in the way in which they do their shopping. It is much more important that women who have only working-class incomes to spend should not have any opportunities for gambling in the shopping they do, but should be quite sure that they are able to get good value in the commodities on which they spend their money.
If a housewife has to buy a new sweeper, washer, refrigerator or carpet, quite a lot of discussion goes into the sale of such an article. She goes round


and looks at one shop after another, sees the goods tested out, and, consequently, when she buys a washer, cleaner or cooker, usually she takes very much more time than would be taken if she were buying a shirt for her husband or a frock for herself. She takes a lot of time buying a carpet, but very often is persuaded to buy a carpet because of the colours in it.
The carpet may be attractive, but she may have very little knowledge whether that carpet is suitable only for a bedroom or will wear well if it goes in the dining room, and, if she has children running about the house, this is very important. There are questions about the tufting and weaving of carpets and their general durability which are most important, and she should have some guidance. At least, we might expect her to be told whether a carpet is or is not suitable for hard wear.
I turn now to one other factor. Advertising has been mentioned. Advertising is a very profitable industry at the present time. Advertising specialists do not advertise merely to sell somebody else's commodities. The firms responsible for the advertisements are advertising in order to make money for themselves out of the designs which they create and the way in which the goods are advertised. Unfortunately, we have far too many people who buy commodities because they are well advertised, and proof of that can be obtained from any retailer. When I.T.V. advertises somebody's coffee, margarine or aspirins under another name, the sale of these commodities goes up immediately. The shopkeeper may be left with a large supply of these goods after a little while, perhaps because people have tried them out and do not want to buy them any longer.
There is also the consideration that the housewife likes to see a presentable packet containing the commodity she buys. One has recently seen how the manufacturers of detergents and corn flakes have been relying on this in order to sell their commodities. During the Whitsuntide Recess I went round two firms, and I was absolutely staggered when I visited one factory. This is a firm which advertises its good very much, and which has a very large factory on which £5 million has been spent on extensions. That money

was made available through advertising, by which the firm has been able to persuade people that its commodity really does "wash whiter," and why.
In one of these factories, the man in charge, knowing the interest I have taken in the subject of detergents and the amount of the commodity contained in the packet, had obtained some of the detergents sold in Germany There, again, the housewife has either been better trained or is not so easily persuaded as are some of our housewives, but the fact is that the packet was not attractive. It was indeed unattractive, but it had no foaming agent in the detergent, and it did the job. It washed quite as effectively as those products of ours which create a tremendous foam, causing trouble not only for sewerage works and rivers, but also, possibly, storing up trouble in future for the housewife herself, if she does not always see that the detergent is sufficiently rinsed off dishes and other articles after washing
It could be a very serious problem in our catering establishments, our dairies and in other places where various utensils are washed, if they are not sufficiently rinsed after the use of a detergent. If one wants to test that, one only need go to a local medical officer and ask him to check on it; I am quite sure that every hon. Member of this Committee would be absolutely appalled at some of the results. The German commodity was very much cheaper than ours.
There is also the question of the blue in detergents—blue Daz and other commodities. The advertisers try to persuade the housewife that she need not use old-fashioned blue when she does her washing because the detergent will blue the clothes without it. But that does not happen. The blue ingredient in the detergents has no effect, and it merely kids the housewife that it saves her another little job of pushing the whites through the blues. Because of successful advertising, the British housewife is gulled in that manner.
Something is being done about it in the schools. Last week I visited a school where the girls were allowed to carry out tests by simple methods in washing, stretching and machining. They were learning about buying materials to be used for washing their clothes, and this will save them a lot of trouble.
I have been glad to receive a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the Government are considering a Bill to deal with weights and measures. At present housewives are being tempted to buy strawberries in punnets. Many housewives think they are buying half a pound or a pound of strawberries in a punnet. At lunchtime I looked at some in a shop, and if I had been persuaded to buy a punnet I am sure I could have had a wide choice in number and weight of strawberries.
When buying potatoes after wet weather such as we have just had, the housewife buys far too much dirt because she has no protection. There is also the matter of packets of soap powders. The housewife should be protected by knowing how much she obtains when she buys a packet of soap powder or other commodities.
We live in an age when we are short of time and when we are confronted by new scientific development in respect of what goes into the commodities that we buy. Far too much money goes into advertising in this country, having regard to the balance of our economy, and some of it is not very reliable advertising. In view of all this, the Government must do something about bringing together existing Statutes for the protection of consumers and introducing new Measures in relation to weights and measures and labelling. These things should be done without delay.
The Ministry of Education should be doing much more in educating school girls so that when they become housewives they will not be so easily persuaded as present housewives are. I am not by any means libelling our housewives, but the next generation will be much more knowledgeable. The Government ought to make bigger grants to the organisations which are protecting consumers, such as the Retail Trading Standards Institution, and should prosecute manufacturers who do not fulfil the claims which they make.
I should like to see not only the Government but the Labour Party give much more consideration to some of the proposals which the Co-operative Movement has put forward so that even if we do not have a "Ministry of Consumer Welfare" we have at least one Minister in the Board of Trade

responsible for taking the necessary action to protect consumers so that their money is spent wisely and they get the very best possible value for it.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has followed the general trend on the other side of the Committee and has dealt with the issue in a very sensible way, realising that it is just as important to promote more intelligent shopping as it is to secure rigid statutory protection for the purchaser. I am glad that she visited one of the big soap manufacturers. I did so a short time ago. I hope that she saw the work done by the detergent manufacturers in relation to the effects of detergents from the health point of view.

Mrs. Mann: We have all had such invitations. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the manufacturers will put the weight on every packet?

Mrs. Slater: Perhaps I might say that my visit was not as a result of an invitation, although the President of the Board of Trade asked me to go. On my own initiative, I asked two firms to arrange a visit for me. One was a Co-operative movement firm and the other a private one.

Mr. Shepherd: These visits come about in a variety of ways. It is valuable that hon. Members should visit manufacturers and learn some of their problems. It is easy to assume that all the difficulties are on the part of the consumers, but some manufacturers go to extraordinary lengths and adopt remarkable methods to make certain that their weights are absolutely correct. It is good that we try to learn the other side of the picture.
Because I had an official engagement outside the House of Commons, I was not here to listen to the opening speech today, but I gather that an extraordinary declaration was made about the efficiency of the Co-operative movement. I should say that the inefficiency of the Co-operative movement is one of the blessings to private enterprise.

Mr. Stonehouse: Then, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the great increase in the Co-operative societies' trade in the last twenty years?

Mr. Shepherd: Because people are attracted by the "divi". I come from Crewe. When the "divi" was 3s. 4d. in the £ it was a tremendous attraction. It did not matter whether the cakes were stale, stodgy and uneatable; one ate them because at the end of six months one got the "divi". If the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) really believes that the Co-operative society, as a business organisation, is efficient, he will believe anything.
If I were to give any advice to the co-operative society—it would be entirely unasked for—I should say that if it is to be efficient it must begin thinking in terms of paying its executives £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000 a year. All the members of the little local associations would then begin complaining, saying that it was a democratic organisation and that the executives ought to earn what they themselves do. As long as they persist in taking that view and the movement accepts it, so long will the Co-operative society be one of the most ghastly and inefficient organisations in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "executive"?

Mr. Shepherd: I mean those responsible for running the Co-operative movement, for example, on the wholesale side of the business, and executives in the larger-scaled Co-operative organisations. I do not mean "executives" in the sense of a members' executive; mean those actually running the business. But I do not want to spend much time talking about the Co-operative movement.

Mr. Dodds: The hon. Member has not a clue.

Mr. Shepherd: That might often be said of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds).

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will remember to rise to their feet when they wish to intervene in the debate.

Mr. Dodds: I apologise, Mr. MacPherson, but I have been rising so many times today without being called that I have got very weak now.

Mr. Shepherd: Comment has been made about the merits of the private

trader. I agree at once that the private trader does not, in all circumstances, do the best that is possible. But I am a profound believer in the competitive system. I believe that the competitive system, on the whole, together with the intelligent shopper—we cannot do without the intelligent shopper if we are to have really effective results—can give the best possible commodities in the country. I believe in the competitive system and the small shopkeeper. I believe in the individual trader, and I want to see him prosper. I do not want to see what some hon. Members opposite want to see, a proliferation of nationalised concerns, because I am satisfied that that is socially bad, and I do not wish economic tidiness to be pursued at the loss of social advantage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), anxious as he was to get his speech through at such speed, resisted my attempt to interrupt him. I wished to do so for a purpose which was by no means unhelpful, but, there again, it was not appreciated. I wanted to point out that, in this country, despite what has been said about distribution costs, we have what are probably the lowest distribution costs in the whole world.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Shepherd: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. After all, some people do a great deal to determine these things. If he is interested, perhaps he will write to the International Association of Departmental Stores, which frequently publishes figures showing the costs of distribution in the various countries where its members are to be found. He will find that, with the exception of Norway, England has the lowest distribution cost in the whole world. When we talk about high distribution costs, we may be talking about individual industries.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Co-operative movement which he was disparaging a few minutes ago, is playing a very big part in ensuring that efficiency?

Mr. Shepherd: Many people are. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a well-known departmental store which is playing ten times the part of Co-operative societies in bringing about lower costs of distribution and better


quality of article. I will not advertise that company, although I have no doubt that its identity will not be lost on most hon. Members. I assert that, on the whole, our distribution costs are lower than those to be found in the rest of the world.
I want now to have a grouse about weights and measures. It has annoyed me ever since I became a Member of the House that this wretched organisation, the Post Office, should not have its scales examined by the weights and measures authorities. I cannot understand why this should be allowed. Why should the Post Office be able to say, "We arrange for competent inspection of our scales, and we make certain that they are right"? Of course, nothing of the kind is done. I know of some very inquiring and diligent housewives who, some years ago, when sending parcels by airmail to people abroad, used to run round from one post office to another until they found a scale registering the lowest charge. That may be an amusing experience, adding some variety to what is usually a very mundane task, but it is quite wrong that the Post Office should be allowed to check its own scales. It should be subject to the normal procedure to which other traders are subject and be covered by the weights and measures regulations.
What can we do about ensuring better quality goods, less shoddy goods and, if one likes, better distribution at lower cost? We cannot do it just by what we say in the House. It is a co-operative effort, not in the sense that the hon. Member for Wednesbury means. We must have several kinds of awareness. We certainly must have public awareness. We must have much more intelligent shopping than we have today. Many shoppers are extremely unintelligent and undiscriminating. We must say that, because it is no good thinking that we can bolster up the interests of the moronic fringe of buyers by statutes and regulations. We cannot do anything of the kind. There must be a more intelligent and discerning public.
Next, we must have more awareness in the trade. Many people who sell goods are not sufficiently interested in the quality of the goods. I take an interest in design, and I am told by those who try to promote it that one of the difficulties in putting better design over is the resistance of those in distribution who

want to sell the old-fashioned thing, the thing they are certain of. They have not sufficient enterprise to push the new product, which may look a little different and may be a little more difficult to sell in some areas. Therefore, I say that, in addition to public awareness, there must be trade awareness, also.
We must have much more scientific examination of the product. When some hon. Members opposite condemn certain manufacturers in this respect, they do so, perhaps, unjustly. Many manufacturers do not know how their articles actually work. Although it may seem a rather strange thing to say, it is not always easy to test performance. Indeed, we are only at the beginning now of performance testing. I went to see, as did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago, a chair performance test at the Furniture Development Council. The Council has been going on with this work for about two years now, and it seems to me that very little progress has been made in trying to find out where the strains are when a person sits down in a chair.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Does the hon. Gentleman mean on the chair or on the human being?

Mr. Shepherd: Both.
I know that many hon. Members will say that one could find out what the strain is on a chair with very little effort. I assure them that that is not so. It is exceedingly difficult to determine and assess these performance standards. I ask the Committee to bear with some manufacturers and trade associations which are trying to establish these standards. It is painstaking work, to which very many men are devoting themselves with great skill, and, if the results are not as readily forthcoming as some hon. Members would like, that is because the job is much more difficult than they have assumed.
Many organisations are trying to help in this respect. There are the trade associations, the Council of Industrial Design, and the British Standards Institution. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), said that the institution should have a bigger staff. It is not entirely a problem of staff. I do not know whether hon. Members really appreciate the extent


of the work of the British Standards Institution. One can gain some idea of it when one learns that (the institution has over 2,300 committees, staffed by voluntary members.

Mrs. Mann: And will the hon. Gentleman agree, I hope, that, although the institution has time and again issued monthly reports, the President of the Board of Trade has taken no action on any of its recommendations?

Mr. Shepherd: I really do not want to go into that, because I feel that there is very much more in this matter of establishing standards than most hon. Members are prepared to admit.
As one interested in the dry cleaning trade, I have been following very closely the efforts of the trade and makers of garments to establish a standard for labelling purposes to enable dry cleaners and launderers to do the right thing with each product. Hon. Members may say that that should be simple. If they were to learn about the discussions which have gone on and the difficulties we have encountered in trying to establish a proper marking system, they would appreciate that it is not a simple matter. It is an exceedingly difficult matter.

Mrs. Mann: A standard has just been issued which is applicable to the raincoats that women have been wearing in the rainy weather that we have had—raincoats that tear at every seam and buttonhole. Although a standard has been issued, it has not been put into operation.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to go into individual cases. Buttons present a particularly difficult problem, and we could have a very long discussion upon them, let alone upon raincoats. I would ask the hon. Lady to accept from me that it is very difficult to produce these standards. When we are not absolutely sure of them it is difficult to enforce them statutorily. What we must do is to get the utmost co-operation from all sections of the community, and that includes a very substantial improvement in the discrimination with which people purchase articles.
Hon. Members opposite have indulged in many attacks upon advertising. I suppose that some advertising is open to

objection, and some of it is not very intelligent. Some of it, indeed, may add unnecessarily to the cost of the commodity. If Income Tax and Profits Tax did not amount to 15s. or 16s. in the £ the amount of advertising done might be reduced. But we must not write off advertising as anti-social. If the cost of advertising reaches unreasonable proportions—if we have to spend 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of our total costs in advertising—it is obviously uneconomic.
Advertising plays a tremendous part in the life of the community, and I do not know how we could get a vital and progressive society without it. If we did not advertise we should have a dull society—a dull, socialist society—and although some people would like to see that, I certainly would not.
Advertising can play a part in improving standards, although I do not necessarily pretend that the advertised product is either the cheapest or the best. Here, I would enter the plea that if traders complain—as they rightly do—about the extent to which profit margins have been whittled down, they themselves might try to become better salesmen than they are at present.
It is a very great temptation to a trader to become merely a hander-out of pre-sold goods, and many of them have accepted this proposition. In doing so they have had to accept a greatly reduced standard of profit, and I think that it would be to the advantage of the community, and especially of purchasers, if shopkeepers thought less in terms of being handers-out of pre-sold packages and more in terms of being sellers of the goods in question. Let them test the goods and establish their value; let them recommend products which are less extensively advertised. In that way they would get a bigger profit for themselves, and perhaps they would provide better value for their customers.
I am satisfied, if hon. Members opposite are not, at the progress that we have made in the last ten years in improving the standard of the product in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth said, we have a great reputation for quality, and I believe that, on the whole, we have maintained that reputation. We now have the problem of translating a reputation built upon non-mass-production methods into one built


upon mass-production methods in a number of industries. It can be done, and I believe that we are doing it to a great extent.
I am pleased with what we have done in the last ten years in British consumer industries, but we have more to do. The reports of the Consumer Advisory Service have shown how poor are some of the products, but despite the fact that testing for performance has not been adequate up to now I am very pleased with what has taken place, and particularly with the way in which people are now conscious of design. It is gratifying to me to think that people can look upon a saucepan as a thing of beauty. In my younger days a saucepan was a hideous thing, but now people have spent time in designing a beautifully shaped and well-balanced saucepan.
It is wonderful to think that in the middle of the twentieth century, after all the mess of the past hundred years, this country is once more thinking in terms of beauty in mass-production goods. That is a most elevating thought, and if the process continues it will have a very marked effect upon our lives, because when we have beautiful things around us we can live much better lives. We have lived far too much with the ugly, and I am very pleased—whatever may be the reservations of hon. Members opposite—to think that we are making very pronounced improvements.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: In the very few moments left to me it is almost impossible to develop my argument. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to rise very shortly, and although neither clock is visible to me, because of reflections, I shall do my best to oblige him.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made many points with which I cordially agree—and I do not entirely dissent from what he said about advertising. But I think that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee are very gravely disturbed by some of the anti-social aspects of the advertising industry, and we very much hope that either within the lifetime of this Government or, at the worst, early in the lifetime of the next, we shall have a Royal Commission on advertising which will go very thoroughly into the whole industry.
With modern conditions and modern marketing methods it is obvious that advertising is an essential ingredient. One cannot get a new product on to the market without modern advertising techniques. But there are directions in which advertising is being gravely misused—directions which are not only anti-social but positively dangerous to the community.
One small example is the recent considerable increase in advertising, aimed directly at young people, encouraging them to drink more alcoholic liquor. The young have been singled out for this campaign by a number of brewers. Another example is the utterly anti-social advertising which defiles the countryside and serves no economic purpose—in fact, it does a great disservice, because it causes us to increase our expenditure of foreign exchange and seeks to increase the vehicles which clog up our roads. I am referring to the advertising of the various brands of petrol. There is no difference between the various grades of different brands, as any engineer will say. These advertisements serve no useful purpose, they cost a great deal of money, and they make the countryside look hideous.
Far more important, however, is the advertising of tobacco products. I interjected during the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), when he was giving statistics of consumption, because I was horrified to hear from him that even during the past year the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco has enormously increased. I understand that on television and in the Press alone advertising these products cost very nearly £2 million during the last half year. The manufacturers of tobacco know very well the grave risks involved. They are not concerned with the cancer death rate. They know very well that cigarettes with filter tips are every bit as dangerous as those without such tips, and yet they are spending millions of pounds trying to shove them down the public's throat.
Before I sit down I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the words of a distinguished doctor—Dr. Robert McCurdy. Speaking at the Commonwealth Chest Conference, which is investigating the causes of cancer, and after pointing out that in the last year for which statistics are available 1,000 more people died from cancer than in the year


before; after referring to the immense increase in lung cancer in England and Wales between 1950 and 1957, and after going through the medical evidence, which proves conclusively that smoking is a contributory cause to this increase, Dr. McCurdy said:
The Minister does not intend that so many cigarette smokers should die of lung cancer. Therefore, he is not guilty of murder, but, by God, he is guilty of manslaughter.
I feel that the advertiser and, indeed, this House are guilty of manslaughter if we do not do something very soon to prevent the sale of what, by all medical evidence, is recognised today as a dangerous and, very often, a lethal drug.

6.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) for sticking so closely to the agreed time-table, particularly as his remarks were so interesting.
Apart from one or two short Adjournment debates, Parliament has not for a long time had such a good opportunity to debate the subject chosen by the Opposition today. I welcome in my turn the opportunity to give the Committee the Government's policy on shopping. But before I do so, and as so much has been said about advertising, I should like to congratulate the Opposition on having secured such very successful advance publicity for their own publication by announcing this afternoon that it would shortly appear. Of course, that serves to explain one surprising feature of the debate, namely, the total boycott of the rival society's publication "Efficiency and the Consumer" which, to my surprise, was not mentioned by any Opposition speaker today.
As the date of publication is 20th July, I hope I may be allowed to make a contribution to the Labour Party's pamphlet by offering a quotation which might be put on the opening pages. As it comes from one of Shakespeare's plays, I feel that the source would certainly be above suspicion. The quotation I offer is:
Sigh no more ladies, sigh no more
Men were deceivers ever.
One of the pleasant features of a debate of this kind is that, as we are all

shoppers ourselves, we can all argue from personal experience, although, naturally, we tend to remember the odd unsatisfactory purchase or transaction, and correspondingly, to take for granted the hundreds, if not thousands, of satisfying purchases which we make every year. Several hon. Members referred to cases where the shopper gets a bad deal or a "racket" appears to exist. I shall try to refer to some of these cases in more detail later in my speech, but right at the beginning I should like to pose this question: Is the British shopper satisfied?
We, as Members of Parliament, have several ways of knowing what is going on in our constituencies, and I am sure that I am right when I say that remarkably little of our time, as Members of Parliament, is taken up in dealing with letters from angry or dissatisfied shoppers. I have not had one for years. Like a number of Members of Parliament I run a "surgery" in my constituency and a fairly popular one, too. I am glad to see one of my constituents sitting on the Front Bench opposite—he "nobbles" me in the House of Commons and does not have to attend my surgery.
I should like to say that in the course of the last few years I have not had a single complaint about shopping from any constituent attending my "surgery", Thus, while it is certainly right for us in the House of Commons to review the law and make suggestions, and to expose what we believe to be "rackets", nevertheless, I am sure that I am right when I say that today the public are satisfied with shopping conditions as they exist. The hundreds of millions of transaction which take place in the shops, markets and streets of Britain every day are completed to the mutual satisfaction of both buyer and seller.
The reason is that we have fully restored to the shopping public the two most valuable safeguards it can have, namely, freedom of choice and competition between traders. Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers all want to stay in business. They want to keep their customers and to attract new ones. Simply and truly, it is wholly against their longterm interests to give the public a bad deal. In fact, the competition of a free market makes them keen to improve on what is already being offered to the public. Free competition automatically


provides the British shopper with the other safeguard, namely, freedom to choose between the products of rivals. If he does not like one article he can buy someone else's.
Perhaps I might just mention a personal experience which I had the other day. I went to a garage to have my car cleaned. The car washer suggested a time which did not suit me, and so I suggested another time which I knew would be unavoidably inconvenient for the garage. [Laughter.] But wait for the rest of the story. Back came the reply from the car washer, "That's all right, Sir, you're the boss." I said, "No, I am not the boss, I am the customer." Back came the reply again, "Well, that is the same thing." I think there is quite a useful lesson to be learned from that, because today in Britain the customer is the boss.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Which garage was that?

Mr. Erroll: I am not going to be guilty of advertising it in this Committee, but I shall be glad to inform the hon. Gentleman afterwards. As a matter of fact, the garage is in London.
Thousands and thousands of shops and manufacturers are willing to serve the customers of Britain today and to meet their wishes. I think we may be very proud of the retail system in this country, because our shopkeepers, large or small, have a long tradition of integrity and desire to please. I do not wish hon. Members just to take my word for that. I urge them to ask the foreign tourists who are flocking into Britain in their thousands at this very time. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), they are delighted to come to Britain and to buy quality goods. Some have told me personally how much they appreciate the standard of service and the courtesy which they find in British shops, both large and small.
Nevertheless, we fully recognise the need to provide statutory safeguards for the consumer. The Board of Trade is traditionally the Department which is generally responsible for measures to protect the shopper from deception by traders. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) suggested that

while the Board of Trade took an interest in this matter, its powers were limited. In fact its powers are broad, and I think that they are usefully exercised, but it makes for good service if other Departments take an interest in this matter and if all the work is not concentrated in one Department.
Whenever a person goes into a shop to buy something there are three things for him to remember to keep an eye upon. They are weight or quantity, quality and price. I shall try to deal with those three things in their separate categories. We believe that there should be no deception about weight or quantity. Out of this simple concept has grown a great deal of complicated national and local legislation and the subject is becoming ever more complicated as more new products, new sales methods and new forms of packaging appear on the market.
I regret as much as anyone the unavoidable delay in the implementation of the Hodgson Report, but the intervening interval has not been wasted. The Hodgson Report appeared while rationing and control were still unavoidably the order of the day. Now we have many new problems to cope with, such as the sale of coal from robot vehicles and how to mark correctly the weight of a prepacked quick-frozen mixed grill which, I might add, is quite an important and difficult thing to achieve.
We have to consider, if we are to decide to sell nails by weight or by count, whether the nails included as part of a "do-it-yourself kit" must be so sold, or whether they should be specially exempted. Those are the sort of modern problems thrown up day after day by the changes and improvements in our sales and marketing metihods; and when the legislation comes along, we shall have taken full advantage of the interval during which we shall have been able to study these changes and legislate properly for such developments.

Mr. Jay: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he now tell us what the date of this legislation will be?

Mr. Erroll: Not at this stage of the current Session. Obviously I cannot give that information.
In devising this legislation we have to keep a balance between elaborate


schemes of protection for the consumer and the costs which will be involved and which the customer would pay in the end. These costs would arise if we were to impose too many checks and controls. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to his purchases of talc powder. While that has not been specifically considered, I think I can say that it would be covered by the legislation which would require all prepacked goods of that sort to be sold by weight. In all probability the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in purchasing talc power at some date in the future.

Mr. Greenwood: Which date?

Mr. Erroll: I have already explained that it is not yet decided.
The other thing which we are doing at present is to make quite useful progress with Regulations relating to food. I actually announced last November that we would be making Regulations under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1956, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, to effect quite a number of improvements in the law relating to the retail sale of food, based on certain of the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee.
I was asked to say when. The problems are quite involved. We put out our proposals to about 80 different organisations affected and asked for observations by 31st March. Many meetings are being held with the organisations on points of difficulty, serious points, not obstructionist. Our original proposals may be modified in certain cases as a result.
I can give the Committee another example. We may have to accept that it is impracticable to mark soda water syphons, but, on the other hand, I think we shall be successful with spirits sold by the glass. They may be included in items to be sold only in specified quantities. We hope to bring the Regulations in as soon as possible, in all probability early next Session, but not this Session.
The hon. Member for Rossendale amused the Committee considerably with his quotations from the packets of detergents. When one hears them read out on the Floor of the Committee they sound rather ludicrous, but I would remind the

hon. Gentleman that after General Elections some housewives amuse themselves by reading out selections from the Election addresses of rival candidates, and there are sometimes exaggerated statements. [Interruption.] I was going on to suggest that if exaggerated claims were to be made illegal the Labour Party would have to be wound up tomorrow.
I do not think that the elaborate and fantastic features on the packets of breakfast cereal do very much harm. They add very much to the gaiety of the breakfast table at a very slight increase in cost, if any at all. And I very much hope that they will continue. They make the packets very much nicer than packets one can obtain in Communist countries, where there is no freedom of choice and precious little competition.
The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) made very interesting points arising out of her visit to a detergent factory. I am glad she followed up the invitation and saw for herself some of the manufacturing problems involved. She will now understand the problems we have in the Board of Trade in protecting the consumer while giving the manufacturer a fair run.

Mrs. Slater: I am not yet converted to the view that they could not sell detergents by weight.

Mr. Erroll: In the new legislation which we are considering we could require all detergents, and not only clothes-washing detergents but washing and scouring powders with them, to be sold by weight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That could be a step forward, but we must not think that it would solve the whole problem. Many factors enter into the making of detergents and one of them is the active ingredients. A person might be able to make up the weight with non-active ingredients while the active ingredients were lacking.

Mr. H. Rhodes: May I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that he is starting off a very difficult process? If he is going to insist upon a standard weight in packed goods every shop will have to be air conditioned to accommodate them.

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remark, which actually illustrated one of my great difficulties in


the Board of Trade, where we have to be fair all round. Loss of moisture is one of our great difficulties, and another is at what stage to put the chopper down and say, "No more loss of moisture".
The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to strawberries in punnets, a very topical point. In our new Regulations we propose to deal with the sale of strawberries by weight and to make that a requirement. The problem is very difficult because of the amount of moisture which can be lost between the picking point, the packing point and the shop. If we put the punnets into cellophane wrappers the strawberries deteriorate, and we are worse off than we were. I shall be grateful to the hon. Lady for any suggestion she may have to help us get over this difficult matter. We are doing our best with it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Regulations. Would he say whether the Government have Regulations in mind or legislation?

Mr. Erroll: Definitely Regulations and not legislation. We hope to do this by Regulation, because it is the retail sale of foodsiuffs and we can do that next Session, if we can get round some of the difficulties in time.
Some hon. Members referred to gift offers. While personally deploring them, I realise that the public like them. One distributor of packet teas held out for a long time against introducing a so-called "dividend" tea. He was compelled in the end to introduce a scheme, which he did by putting the price up by the same amount as the dividend handed back to the customer. It sounds ridiculous to hon. Members here, but I am informed that the sales of that brand of tea went up tremendously. Why should not the manufacturer provide tea in the way which customers wish? Who are we to say that his customers should not adopt this method of saving petty cash if they wish?
The second thing to bear in mind is quality. We believe that the customer should decide for himself, except in regard to the purity of food where special requirements are enforced by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We believe that a quality stan-

dard should be voluntary and not compulsory.
Let those hon. Members who favour compulsory standards ask themselves what sort of standard they would impose. A very high one? Then many consumers either could not afford or would not wish to buy high quality goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) made this point particularly well in his interesting speech. Furthermore, many manufacturers could not produce goods up to the legal standard so there might well be a shortage of goods and possible unemployment in many factories.
All right. Should we have a low standard as the legal standard, a "charter of shoddy"? That is not what most of us want. This would not serve the purpose of legal protection because many manufacturers would refuse to manufacture to a low standard, and so the standard would be boycotted and would fall into disrepute. We back a policy of voluntary standards as the most practical way of dealing with this matter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) for referring to the problem of satisfactory performance standards. I remember a chair which had to be subjected to some very intricate tests which were not satisfactory owing to the habit of some people of sitting on one leg of a chair and tilting it over. The manufacturers devised a very clever method of performance test carried out under a satisfactory arrangement, so that people who now buy that chair get a high-performance, tested chair and will know that they are getting a hard-wearing and well-tested article.
Those standards are worked out and devised by the British Standards Institution in consultation and by discussion with British industry. The Government support B.S.I. by a general grant, this year of £150,000 and a special grant of £10,000 specifically for work for the domestic consumer. Here I should express my full agreement with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough who hoped trade associations and other bodies would support the work of the B.S.I. more generously. It is well supported at present by popular subscription, but any additional money made available would be most well spent and I hope everyone will remember what the hon. Member said.
Some hon. Members rather gave the impression that we had really nothing to show on the consumer goods side of the problem. That is not true because an impressive list of standards for consumer goods is in being. The majority of those relate to sizes, weight, terms, definitions and so on and some, only a few I am afraid, to quality and performance. We have many standards of consumer goods and those are valuable and much appreciated.
The hon. Member for Rossendale referred to Kite marks. It is important to realise that Kite marks do not indicate only a minimum standard; the goods must comply with objective tests which ensure a reasonable standard of performance. The case of the Marlborough Street pillows prosecution was mentioned. It is hardly necessary to remind the Committee that no law—in this case the Merchandise Marks Act—is immune from contravention. The fact that the law is there enables prosecution to take place and the matter to be put in order.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is it not a fact that that prosecution was made, neither by the Board of Trade nor the B.S.I., but by a voluntary organisation, the Retail Trading Standards Association?

Mr. Erroll: I am glad the hon. Member referred to that because I wanted to point out that, although we can and do prosecute, other bodies can do so and other bodies are active in this way. In the year ending 30th June, 1958, the Board of Trade brought 24 prosecutions and all the 23 completed cases were successful. We do prosecute and I am glad that other organisations do so, although there are no central statistics of the number of prosecutions by those other bodies.
The question of labelling was referred to. We are all in favour of an extension of informative labelling. Progress is being made, particularly in regard to a laundry code and a textile glossary which have been produced in recent years, but effective action—it must be effective action if it is to be any good—depends on the co-operation of a number of industries, and it cannot be achieved quickly.
I now come to the third factor, price. We believe the best way of keeping prices down is by competition between manufacturers and retailers. Except for goods which are individually price maintained, there is no special sanctity about a price tag on an article. It is merely "an offer to treat" and indicates that the seller will sell at that price. The buyer is free to make a counter offer, which the seller can reject or accept as he pleases. When we consider retail shoppers we realise that we are not a nation of hagglers. If shoppers do not like the price demanded at one shop they go to another shop where prices are lower. The shop where prices are out of line will soon have to come down to the general level. It is a combination of common sense and taken-for-granted efficiency.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Gentleman should try it.

Mr. Erroll: I have tried it and it works very well. I can recommend it to the hon. Member. We reinforced these sound practices by passing the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1956. That Act was designed to encourage the growth of competition in trade, and some success has already been achieved. In various fields restrictive arrangements have been abandoned and in others—the grocery trade is a good example—the rigidity of price arrangements has been noticeably reduced. Where the parties to a restrictive agreement feel that it benefits the consumer, they can under the Act argue it before the Restrictive Practices Court.
It was not claimed by the Government when the Act was passed that it would bring about spectacular reductions in prices. Indeed, it was recognised that in times of inflation price rings may operate to stabilise rather than to inflate prices. This may be at the cost of rigidity in trade and lack of opportunity for new entrants and the marketing of new products. If the Act achieves its object, consumers will benefit by more flexibility of the supply of goods, but it is up to shoppers to take advantage of this by demanding the goods they want and by looking critically at those which are offered to them both as regards price and quality. No law could achieve this for them.
The Government stand by competition and freedom of choice as the best safeguards for the consumer, and the best way of bringing prices down. We back up this policy with a body of Weights and Measures legislation which puts beyond argument the quantity of an article being purchased. By the Merchandise Marks Acts we protect against deceptive description of goods while leaving the shopper free to decide what quality he wants, quality standards themselves being best settled on a voluntary basis; while on prices themselves we have set up the Restrictive Practices Court, the very existence of which is already achieving beneficial results; and in the field of hire

purchase we have through legislation given the shopper access to all the facts before he need make up his mind.

We believe the shopping public thoroughly approves of the Government's successful combination of personal freedom and carefully planned protection, which I now invite the Committee to endorse.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the unconvincing reply that we have had, I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote I (Board of Trade), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 242.

Division No. 196.]
AYES
[6.57 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Forman, J. C.
Logan, D. G.


Albu, A. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
McCann, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Gibson, C. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gooch, E. G.
MacDermot, Niall


Balfour, A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McGovern, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grimond, J.
Messer, Sir F.


Blyton, W. R.
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)




Bowles, F. G.
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Boyd, T. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moss, R. L.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss M.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oram, A. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Orbach, M.


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Oswald, T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, Horace
Owen, W. J.


Chapman, W. D.
Holt, A. F.
Padley, W. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Clunie, J.
Howell, Denis (All saints)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, John


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, N.


Cronin, J. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Crossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Prentice, R. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Probert, A. R.


Delargy, H. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.


Diamond, John
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Dye, S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reeves, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Edelman, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Ross, William


Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Arthur
Royle, C.


Foot, D. M.
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.




Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilkins, W. A.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Skeffington, A. M.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Thornton, E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Sorensen, R. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Spriggs, Leslie
Viant, S. P.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Steele, T.
Wade, D. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Warbey, W. N.
Winterbottom, Richard


Storehouse, John
Weitzman, D.
Woof, R. E.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Swingler, S. T.
West, D. G.



Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheeldon, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Erroll, F. J.
Kirk, P. M.


Aitken, W. T.
Finlay, Graeme
Lagden, G. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lambton, Viscount


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Amery, Julan (Preston, N.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leather, E. H. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leavey, J. A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Leburn, W. G.


Ashton, H.
Gammans, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Barber, Anthony
Glover, D.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Barlow, Sir John
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Barter, John
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)




Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bingham, R. M.
Green, A.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Black, C. W.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Body, R. F.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marshall, Douglas


Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mathew, R.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hesketh, R. F.
Mawby, R. L.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Carr, Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nairn, D. L. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hope, Lord John
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Oakshott, H. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Osborne, C.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Page, R. G.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Partridge, E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Peel, W. J.


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Deedes, W. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, H. P.


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Duncan, Sir James
Keegan, D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Profumo, J. D.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kershaw, J. A.
Rawlinson, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kimball, M.
Redmayne, M.


Errington, Sir Eric









Rees-Davies, W. R.
Storey, S.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Renton, D. L. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Rippon, A. G. F.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Robertson, Sir David
Teeling, W.
Wall, Patrick


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Temple, John M.
Webbe, Sir H.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Webster, David


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Shepherd, William
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wood, Hon. R.


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Speir, R. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.



Stevens, Geoffrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down

by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have given careful consideration to the various Motions on the Order Paper and I find, also as a result of conversations, that the point is the matter of the Ardwick Cemetery. I find no disposition to raise wider issues on the Bill, so the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has agreed not to move his Motion, "That it be considered upon this day three months." I understand that he is to second a Motion for the recommittal of the Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), and he can then tell us why he has taken that course.
The Motion of the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), "That the Report from the Committee on the Bill be now considered," is not necessary, since the House can do what he asks without any formal Motion. I propose to proceed directly to the Motion for recommittal, which I shall put to the House in the form of an Amendment to the Question, "That the Bill be now considered." That would enable as wide a discussion as I have had a notice of being desired by hon. Members.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I think that it will facilitate the business. However, I want to safeguard our Parliamentary rights before we proceed. Am I correct in understanding that your Ruling is that provided we confine ourselves mainly to the Ardwick Cemetery controversy, and all that arises out of it, we shall be in order?

Mr. Speaker: Quite in order.

7.10 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered" and to add instead thereof:
recommitted to the former Committee in respect of the following Amendment to Clause 44 standing in the name of Sir John Barlow viz.:—

Clause 44, page 29, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(3) The price payable to the Company by the Corporation in respect of the undertaking of the Company shall be £2,100 or the value of the net assets of the Company on 2nd December, 1957, whichever is the greater;
(4) The value of the net assets of the Company on 2nd December, 1957, shall be ascertained by an independent valuer appointed by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the cost of the valuation shall be defrayed by the Corporation;
(5) If on the winding-up of the Company the amount of the surplus assets payable in respect of any share acquired on or after the 2nd December, 1957, by or on behalf of the Corporation, to the Corporation or to any other person on their behalf, exceeds £1, the amount of any such excess shall be paid to the person who was the holder of that share on 2nd December, 1957.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I have been informed that the members of the Select Committee who considered the Bill are not likely to take part in this debate, in view of the fact that the Bill may be recommitted to their Committee to consider again.
The Manchester Corporation Bill has been considered by the Select Committee and a Report dated 15th May has been submitted to this House. There are many valuable Clauses in the Bill which are urgently required by the Corporation for the management of that great city. There are, however, some Clauses on which the Select Committee reported critically. The Select Committee especially drew attention to Clauses 46 and 50, under which the Manchester Corporation sought to obtain the approval of Parliament to the transfer to the Corporation and to the winding up of Ardwick Cemetery Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948.
The facts appear to be that the Ardwick Cemetery Company was formed in 1839 with a capital of £2,100 in £1 shares. For a time the cemetery was fashionable and prosperous and many well-known people were buried there, including John Dalton, the scientist, Edward Holme, and Sir Thomas Potter, who was the first Lord Mayor of Manchester. This ground is not consecrated and has not been used for burials for some years, although occasionally interments took place in existing graves or vaults, to as late as 1950. The cemetery is, moreover, in a very dilapidated condition and overgrown with weeds.
There is no doubt that this graveyard should be dealt with. Any such action is long overdue. I would emphasise that I do not disagree with the fact that action should be taken. The whole point at issue, and the reason for this Motion is that the method of securing control of the company was open to grave criticism.
The Select Committee reporting on the Bill on 15th May, at page 38 of its Report, pointed out—I quote—that the
Manchester Corporation sought to obtain the approval of Parliament to the transfer to the Corporation and the winding-up of the Ardwick Cemetery Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948. The Corporation proposed to pay £1 each or par to existing shareholders for their £1 share without going through the procedure enjoined in the Companies Act.
In the next paragraph it appears that the President of the Board of Trade, in his report, stated that on a break-up basis the shares were worth more than £1 each. He pointed out that the Clauses., if passed unamended, would deprive shareholders of the company of the protection given by the Companies Act and might operate to their disadvantage. It further appears from the Report that the Town Clerk sent a letter to the shareholders, dated 2nd December, 1957, and as a result purchased 2,017 shares out of the total of 2,100 of the company.
This letter, signed by Mr. Dingle, who is the Town Clerk, pointed out that the cemetery was neglected and overgrown with weeds and that the company might well be embarrassed if a public scandal arose, and that the company, with its limited resources, could not afford to clear up the cemetery. He pointed out that the Manchester City Council could usefully use the land for school playing fields or an open space and suggested that if this opportunity were allowed to pass it would be unlikely that such a favourable offer would be forthcoming in the future. This letter provides for the purchase of the shares contingent upon the fact that the Corporation could secure the necessary powers from Parliament.
The Town Clerk actually said, and I quote:
I am, therefore, writing to ask you to let me know if you would be prepared to accept an offer of £1 per share for the shares which you hold in the Company if the Corporation obtain the necessary powers from Parliament.

It would seem that this is rather anticipating events, and certainly it does not provide for the possibility of the rejection or substantial alteration by Parliament of the Bill which was originally presented. It does not seem to be very businesslike to make a formal offer for shares in anticipation of future legislation.
In looking over the memorandum issued by the Manchester City Council concerning this matter, paragraph 17, the Council says quite clearly—and I quote—that it considers
that public interest would be best served by the acquisition of the Cemetery under Parliamentary powers.

An Hon. Member: It is all quote.

Sir J. Barlow: I wish to make it very accurate and clear, and it is for that reason that I have been so careful to show where I am actually quoting and where not.
This cemetery existed under the Companies Act and, as the Board of Trade pointed out, should have been liquidated under the Companies Act, the Bill being changed in Committee to secure this end, and yet the Council, of its own accord, without any intimation to anyone, now says that it considers the liquidation under parliamentary powers is the best method. It seems a rather tall order when the Manchester Corporation wishes to dictate the method of liquidation without mentioning it to anyone, and it was due only to the vigilance of the President of the Board of Trade that this matter was noted and reported on so critically to the Select Committee.
The whole matter, as the House knows, was brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions who, after making inquiries, reported to the Attorney-General. In a Written reply to a Question in this House on 1st July the Attorney-General said there was
no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts
against Section 12 of the Prevention of Frauds (Investments) Act, 1939.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that Section 13 of the Act prohibits the distribution of a circular inviting persons to sell securities without going through the procedure enjoined in the Companies Act, which provides that


any offer of this kind, as contemplated by Mr. Dingle, should have been sent through the principal of any recognised stock exchange or recognised association of dealers in securities or various other people, including what they call a holder of a member's licence. There appeared to be an infringement of that Section, the Attorney-General said. That is the important factor: there was an infringement of Section 13. According to the evidence given to the Select Committee, Mr. Dingle admitted that he took advice on this point, but apparently he did not act on it.
The Attorney-General stated that offences against that Section
may be prosecuted only by or with the consent of the Board of Trade or the Director of Public Prosecutions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 78.]
The Attorney-General, in this case, decided not to prosecute. This clearly shows that the Town Clerk committed a criminal offence—

Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that, in his reply, the Attorney-General offered the opinion that an offence "may be prosecuted." Those were the exact words.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that, in this matter, hon. Members will forget the height of the temperature outside, and conduct the debate calmly and without unnecessary heat.

Sir J. Barlow: However, in the circumstances, prosecution is not called for. Vast sums are certainly not involved in this case. It is a matter of complying with the law. The object of my Motion is to make sure that the shareholders are treated absolutely fairly and in accordance with the law.
Subsection (3) of the Motion provides that the shareholders on 2nd December—that is, before they received Mr. Dingle's letter—shall receive either £1, which has already been paid in respect of 2,017 shares, or the value of the net assets on the liquidation of the company, whichever is the greater It is difficult to assess what the break-up value may be. The assets of the company consist of about £3,800, in value, of gilt-edged securities, and leases which, until recently, amounted to £227 a year but which have

recently gone up to £310 a year—and, of course, an overgrown, derelict cemetery. To assess the value of a disused, overgrown derelict cemetery would test the ability of any valuer. I think that we are all agreed on that.
Mr. Dingle suggests that if this land were cleared, and could built on, it would be worth £7,000 an acre. It is, however, required as an open space and, possibly, a recreation ground, and it must have considerable value for that purpose. It is open to some doubt whether the company, had it continued, could have been forced to spend its assets on clearing up the cemetery. Indeed, counsel for the Manchester Corporation, as will be seen at page 17 of the Minutes of Evidence said that it would not.
Subsection (4) of my Motion provides for the appointment of an independent valuer to be appointed by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Ellis Smith rose—

Sir J. Barlow: He will be asked to value the assets and assess the cost of the liabilities—

Mr. Jack Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the House have guidance as to the method in which this speech is being delivered? Is it part of the custom of the House for every single word to be read from a prepared brief? And could we be told when the hon. Member is quoting, and when it is his own opinion that he is stating? Is it in order to continue to read from what is definitely a prepared brief?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member did appear to me to be reading, but I thought that he was quoting something from someone else. Read speeches are out of order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) will forgive me for a moment so that I may tell him that in this House it is usual for Members to maintain a high standard; and that when statements have appeared in HANSARD it is usual to accept those statements. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at columns 77 and 78 of HANSARD for 1st July, he will see that in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for


Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) the Attorney-General made a full statement which completely vindicates the Town Clerk of Manchester. Before the hon. Member proceeds, will he be good enough to say whether he accepts that?

Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has made a statement that is quite inaccurate, I wonder whether, to clear up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) nor the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is raising a point of order. These are all questions of debate, and can be discussed later.

Mr. Ellis Smith: To keep myself straight, Mr. Speaker, may I emphasise that I did not raise a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Exeter prefaced his remark by saying that it was further to a point of order. There is no point of order before the House. What we are waiting for is to hear the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich.

Mr. Jack Jones: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have an answer to my question whether it is in order for this practice to be indulged in by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing that transcends the bounds of order yet.

Sir J. Barlow: I suggest that, in a matter of this kind, it is of great importance to get quotations, figures and facts absolutely accurate. I have frequently seen it done before in the House for that reason—for hon. Members to quote notes quite copiously for accuracy's sake in an important debate of this kind.
It will be remembered that before I was interrupted I was suggesting that a valuer should be appointed to value these shares. Subsequently, a liquidator would be appointed, and the whole company would then be wound up properly in accordance with company law.
The Clauses dealing with the Ardwick Cemetery may be considered a small part

of the Bill, but some of us attach great importance to the view that Manchester should not be allowed to ignore the law and do what a private individual is not allowed to do. Many of us have known prosecutions for exactly similar things. It is true that, in this case, the people involved do not get great personal gain out of it. At the same time, it is up to a great Corporation of this kind to set an example, and to comply with the law. Here I think that the Corporation has been just too slick.
It is true that the Council, as reported in the Press, called for, and passed, a vote of confidence in the Town Clerk, but that, Mr. Speaker, is beside the point. By implication, those members were trying to cover themselves. I must say that if the Town Clerk is not responsible—I imagine that he is, but if he is not—the only other person whom I think could be held to be responsible would be the Lord Mayor in office during the year—

Mr. L. M. Lever: The wrong year.

Sir J. Barlow: This slipshod manner of handling the business is further illustrated by the placing of a memorandum in the Corporation's defence in the Vote Office last week in an irregular way—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. W. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really do object to using the device of a point of order to interrupt an hon. Member's speech, and I rarely do so, but I should like to put this to you. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) has said that his object in using rather extensive notes in addressing the House is to stick closely to facts and figures. It will be clear to you, I am sure, as it is to most hon. Members, that this speech contains a number of calculated smears. I do not think that the hon. Member should be allowed to read contributions of that kind.

Mr. Speaker: When I observed him last, the hon. Member was not reading. However, as to the incident about the publication, I gave a great deal of attention to it, and came to the conclusion that although there had been a technical error on the part of the agent in not affixing his name to it, there was


no real blame attaching to anybody. I think that the House accepted my view on that occasion, and I therefore do not think that that is an argument relevant to the matter in hand.

Sir J. Barlow: I certainly did not wish in any way to question your authority, Sir. What I meant to do was to draw attention to the fact that Manchester Corporation is not as careful as it should be. I have here a quotation—I will not read it—giving your concluding words on Monday, Mr. Speaker, when you drew attention to the fact that there had been an irregularity, I think, to Clause 18, but that in the circumstances it had done no harm at all. We appreciate and accept that, and I thank you for your Ruling, Sir. I was not questioning it. I was merely wishing to point out that Manchester Corporation, in several cases, is not nearly as careful about doing things as it should be.
I should like further to illustrate Manchester Corporation's method of doing things by giving another example—it will be quite a short one—of something which occurred in my own constituency. I feel sure that some hon. Members opposite who represent Manchester constituencies will remember that the Waterworks Committee bought about 561 acres of land near Middleton about 1921. It was found subsequently that this land was not required for a waterworks; it was used for building, and what is now known as the Langley Estate was developed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now straying from the point at issue. He is asking the House to recommit this Bill to the same Committee in respect of certain Amendments of which he has given notice. I do not see how a transaction which has nothing to do with the cemetery can strengthen his argument or affect it in any way. The hon. Member must confine himself to his own Amendment. After all, he drafted it; I did not

Sir J. Barlow: I am sorry if I have gone too wide, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to point out that they bought this land for £46 an acre and tried to sell it back to Middleton Corporation for £550 an acre.
Leaving that on one side, I will proceed and call attention to the excellent leading article in The Times of 5th July, when I

think it put the whole case of the Ardwick Cemetery in a very fair way. It described the episode as a storm in a teacup, but I would add that Manchester is a rather big teacup. It summarises the situation by saying:
It seems clear enough that, in anything to do with share-transactions, a local authority is in exactly the same position as a private person. If it wants to make an offer for shares, whether to promote land development or for any other purpose, it must comply with the Prevention of Fraud Act. The most natural way would be to channel the offer through an exempted dealer … or a licensed dealer.
The leader concludes by saying that it might be a very good thing to consider the Amendment which I am now moving.
In conclusion, I would emphasise that I have no criticism at all of the acquisition of the cemetery as such.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I should not think so after last Friday, when the hon. Gentleman saw it.

Sir J. Barlow: I object to the way in which the Corporation tried in an illegal manner to achieve this, and I base the whole of my argument on that fact.

7.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I beg to second the Amendment.
Despite the maniacal laughter and the pointless interruptions throughout his speech, the Amendment was most eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). Hon. Members opposite can bellow at me till the cows come home. What I intend to say will be heard and it will go down in HANSARD, and if hon. Members do not like it they can lump it.
I hope the House will allow me to start my speech on a personal note. As a Cheshire Member for the past ten years, I have been fighting to stop Manchester acquiring thousands of our finest agriculture acres—not entirely without success. But after my activity in connection with this Bill, I fear that it is thought in certain quarters that I am an enemy of Manchester. Nothing could be further from the truth and I hope hon. Members opposite, however much they may disagree with what I say, will accept my word for that.
I have lived close to Manchester all my life, and my imagination and love for it


were stirred as long ago as I can remember by my father who would remind me as we approached its chimneys from the green fields oaf Cheshire that, "Here is where the wealth of England lies." Since then I have looked with pride upon Manchester's mighty industrial achievements and its great tradition for staunchness and integrity, and it is only because I am jealous of Manchester's proud reputation that I shall speak as I shall this evening believing, as a friend and a protagonist of that great city, that in this instance Manchester has not been worthy of herself.
I am delighted that the Attorney-General has stated, in connection with the letter to the Ardwick Cemetery holders, that there are no grounds for prosecuting for an offence under Section 12 of the Act. Nevertheless, it was contrary to Section 13 of the Act to write direct to the shareholders; and, however much hon. Members opposite may dislike it and say that it is a slur, my best legal advice—and it is pretty high legal advice—says that it was a criminal offence.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Say that outside.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I will see you outside.

Mr. Lever: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. May I have your Ruling whether an hon. Member of this House is entitled to make allegations of a criminal offence against another Member who has no opportunity of protecting himself? Would the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) make such a statement outside this House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I would check any hon. Member who made a statement about another hon. Member of this House which was not in order, but the hon. and gallant Member is quite in order in what he is saying now. The only thing which was really quite out of order was the remark that he made when he said, "I will see you outside." I have no intention of seeing the hon. and gallant Member outside.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am the last person to seek the protection of the Privilege of this House. If I am wrong, and if any hon. Gentleman can produce legal evidence of the highest

quality to show that I am wrong, I shall at once withdraw. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the public interest does not require him to prosecute in this case.
As regards the Manchester periodical or magazine which has been made available to all Members through the Vote Office, at great cost to the Manchester ratepayers—I shudder to think how much it cost—

Mr. Alfred Robens: Whose expense account was that?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: —the first paragraph of the introduction states, inter alia:
The City Council submit this statement to satisfy the House and all who have read the Report that the City Council and the Town Clerk have acted with complete propriety.
This was issued to all hon. Members immediately after the Attorney-General's reply, to a written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), that an offence had been committed under Section 13 of the Act, a certain kind of offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "A criminal offence."] I will not remark on that. I wish merely to say that, as far as I am concerned, I do not think that this magazine—

Mr. Eric Johnson: My hon. and gallant Friend says that my right hon. and learned Friend has said that an offence had been committed under the Act. As I read what my right hon. and learned Friend said, it was that—
it would, therefore, appear that there was an infringement of this Section".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 78.]

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: For myself, I consider that that is as good as saying that an offence has been committed. I do not understand why my hon. Friend should make an intervention of that nature.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better take his hon. Friend outside, too.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am no lawyer and I have little experience of such matters. I want to contribute to this debate by submitting what may well be the point of view of the ordinary citizen. If anything I say is wrong, no


doubt I shall be corrected not only while I am speaking but afterwards also. What are the facts? They can be simply and plainly stated. The Manchester Corporation decided to take over the Ardwick Cemetery. Quite properly, it first approached the director and made an offer. The director, quite naturally, and, again, perfectly properly, felt that he could get a better bargain than the Corporation proposed, and refused the offer.
This happens, I understand, quite often to experts in take-over bids like Mr. Charles Clore, but what does not happen then is that Mr. Clore says, "You have refused my offer of 6d. a share, or whatever it may be. Very well; I will go to Parliament and promote a Bill which will make you accept it". But this is what the Corporation did.
The Corporation put provisions in its Bill for the take-over of the company at an arbitrary figure, without consulting either the shareholders or anybody except officials of its own City Treasurer's Office and an unnamed stockbroker who said that he thought the shares were probably unmarketable. But when a company incorporated under the Companies Act is to be wound up, as the Bill says it must be, no question of marketing the shares should arise. The Companies Act recognises that any value placed on shares in these circumstances might well mean that the shareholders would be unfairly treated. That is the purpose of the Act. That is why Parliament passed the law and that is why the Act provides for quite a different form of winding up, namely, that, after liabilities have been met, the net assets are divided among the shareholders. To start talking about the market value of shares in a company to be compulsorily taken over has an ominous ring about it. It repeats, on a small scale, the worst features of nationalisation without reference to fair value, arbitration, and so forth.
We are told in the Manchester magazine that the figure offered for the shares was a generous one and that everybody was happy about it. Of course, no shareholder wrote to the Corporation after the Committee's report. The shareholders saw that Parliament was determined to see that they had a fair deal,

so what earthly point was there in writing to Manchester? Anyway, that is not the point. If one wants to take over a company, it should be done in the proper, recognised way, and any other method is open to grave abuse.
I shall not argue whether or not the price offered by the Manchester Corporation was generous or ungenerous, fair or unfair. I ask hon. Members to imagine themselves as shareholders, considering for the moment that the offer they have had for their shares has been most ungenerous. What action can they take? What can they do about it? Imagine one's boiling indignation at the injustice of the offer because one is now being forced to sell at a low figure. How can one obtain justice? As I understand it, the answer is that one could petition against the Bill. This is an expensive and difficult proceeding far beyond the resources of shareholders. They might lose the case and finish with less than ever or even with a liability. If they won, their expenses might be so great that they would finish with less than the original offer.
How can anyone afford to fight a huge corporation with all its powers and limitless purse supplied by the Manchester ratepayers? The answer is, of course, that one takes anything one is offered and is thankful for it This is the reason for Section 13 of the Act.
I want now to examine the letter written by the Manchester Corporation to the Ardwick Cemetery shareholders. The first paragraph starts:
If you have not visited this cemetery recently you may not be aware how neglected it has become. The entrance gates are broken, and the growth of weeds and shrubbery has made it almost impossible to reach some of the graves".

Robens: Is it true or not?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: That is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman should know, moreover, that it is not customary in this House for a Front Bench Member to interrupt a back bencher.
If I were a small shareholder, I should feel, on reading that paragraph, that I was responsible for this bad order. Further, I would also realise that I could not afford to put it right. What will come next? I am beginning to feel a


little anxious. This is the next paragraph:
It is difficult to see how the cemetery company with its limited resources can hope to make any substantial improvement in these conditions and there seems a real danger of the cemetery becoming a public scandal as has happened with one or two commercial cemeteries in other towns.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: We are all agreed on that. What is the shareholders' reaction? [An HON. MEMBER: "Sell the stock in trade."] My reaction would be, "The Manchester Corporation are being quite nice about it. They point out that they cannot afford to spend the money. But here we go again—that nasty bit about scandals elsewhere. Perhaps they were made examples of elsewhere and had to spend a lot of money and lost all their shares. How can I get rid of this liability and sell my shares?"
Paragraph 3 reads:
The company could not dispose of the cemetery for commercial purposes without obtaining an Act of Parliament and at very high cost, as this would involve not only the removal of the tombstones but also the exhumation of all the human remains.
As a shareholder, I am getting more worried than ever. My reaction is, "Oh, dear, I cannot get rid of my shares without an Act of Parliament—and all that bit about tombstones and human remains! This is absolutely awful."
Now we get the paragraph where the soft soap comes into the matter:
The City Council could usefully make use of the land for school playing fields or as an open space (which should avoid having to remove the human remains) and they will be prepared to do this notwithstanding the considerable cost involved in clearing away the weeds and removing the tombstones, if they are able to acquire the cemetery undertaking as a whole, which means acquiring all the shares.
My reaction to that is that I heave a sigh of relief. At last I have a willing buyer and I am a willing seller. My next reaction is, "What will I get?"

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. and gallant Member could not get half-a-crown for his own house.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will the hon. Gentleman stop that quacking? Therefore, I heave a sigh of relief. I have a willing buyer and I am a willing

seller. I want to get as much for it as I can.
Paragraph 5 submits the offer, and I will not go into the offer in detail except to say that it carefully omits to say what are the profitable assets in the shape of investments and rent. That is a nasty one. Hon. Members opposite will have to spend quite some time in answering that one.
Paragraph 6 ends the letter. This is what it says:
You will understand that if this opportunity is allowed to pass it is doubtful whether such a favourable offer would be forthcoming in the future, quite apart from the fact that the company may in the meantime be forced by public opinion to use more of their income and investments on caring for the cemetery than they have done in the past.
It goes on:
It would be most helpful if you would let me have your decision as soon as possible.
My reaction to that final paragraph is this: "If I do not accept the offer, they will withdraw it. In addition, I shall probably be forced to put the cemetery in good order. I may be ruined". But the Board of Trade representative reported to the Committee that it was not at all certain that this threat could have been enforced. If the company wound up, it would be open for the liquidator to apply to the courts for leave to disclaim this liability, as was done in Nottingham. As a shareholder, I consider that I am for the high jump. An eminent lawyer told me when he read that letter that he would have got rid of the shares as quickly as he possibly could on receipt of it.
But suppose the shareholder, as is said in the North, "turns a bit awkward", and he decides, "I do not think I will sell these shares after all". He knows that he is faced with another and even greater danger. Manchester may decide to acquire the property by compulsory purchase order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] As my speech blossoms like some flower opening in the sun, the hon. Member will hear the reason. If he fights for justice once the compulsory purchase order machinery gets into motion he realises that the expense of an inquiry might be even greater. Solicitors and lawyers have to be paid; expenses will be incurred in the attendance of witnesses, and so on; and even if he wins,


the expenses as a result of that inquiry may be so great that again he will end up with a loss.
But suppose he wins the inquiry. He is not over the last jump yet, because Manchester might decide on some other excuse to hold another inquiry. This story bears very much on the minds of people who live in the North. A second inquiry actually took place at Lymm in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper). Here Manchester wishes to acquire an area to build a new town. The second inquiry has just been completed, and the result of it has proved the most terrible expense to the county council and to the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. L. M. Lever: This is quite out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: We know that the hon. Member is extremely sensitive on this point. I submit that it is in order.

Mr. Lever: Mr. Lever rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will the hon. Member sit down?

Mr. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Mr. Speaker has already ruled earlier that anything outside the terms of the Ardwick Cemetery are absolutely unrelated to the matters of debate and must not be introduced. The hon. Member is going outside the realms of the Ardwick Cemetery, for what reason I do not know, but he seems clearly out of order. I think that the learned Clerks at the Table—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order. Having regard to the point made by Mr. Speaker when he was in your place, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to submit that my hon. and gallant Friend is justified in his reference.

Mr. Lever: Mr. Lever rose—

Mr. Williams: I am on a point of order, and I do not think I should be interrupted.

Mr. Lever: May we have a reply to my point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I will hear the hon. Member for Exeter.

Mr. Williams: I am speaking further to the point of order by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever). I venture to suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my hon. and gallant Friend is fully justified in referring to these other activities in Manchester.

Mr. Lever: Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Williams: I am on a point of order. My hon. and gallant Friend, in his very able manner, said that if the shareholders were not to accept this offer, they might suffer in the same way as other people suffered from the City of Manchester.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not now seem to be making a point of order. I understand that Mr. Speaker called this Amendment, which deals largely with the cemetery, which, I understand, is the main point of the discussion. That does not mean that the discussion is entirely limited to the cemetery, because the Question is, "That the Bill be now considered."

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order. I am giving this illustration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to show how it bears on the mind of one of the shareholders who received that letter. It is extremely relevant.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) referred in his speech to the purchase of land by the Manchester Corporation from Rochdale [HON. MEMBERS: "Middleton."] I am sorry, Middleton. Mr. Speaker said that matters of that kind were outside the scope of the discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker ruled that out—I was not present at the time, as the hon. Member knows—because it was not in the Bill. We cannot discuss what is not in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Hon. Members are extremely sensitive on this point because they are not going to like it. The second inquiry into the acquisition of land in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn has just been completed. The share-


holder may live in Runcorn or in Lymm or Mobberley, or in the Knutsford constituency, if he is lucky. The point is that the shareholder knows what happened at this second inquiry. It has proved a tremendous expense to the county council, to the National Farmers' Union and to the owners of land. They have been put to double the expense in order to fight for their rights. The shareholder may be a member of the National Farmers' Union. The head of the National Farmers' Union came to tell me, on this very case in the area of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn, that these rich corporations have only to go on long enough and they will win all their cases by default because the other party cannot afford to go on.
I very much regret the publication of the Manchester magazine, because I consider that it has made Manchester's case even worse. Manchester flatly refuted the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and then sought to divert attention by publishing a lot of irrelevant matter, such as photographs of the cemetery, and arguing whether or not a fair price was paid for the cemetery. That was done after the Board of Trade had made its correction. It was done after the Select Committee, consisting of all parties in the House of Commons, considered that Manchester had been guilty of offence. So strong was the evidence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had to put in the fraud squad.
Instead of this arrogant attitude, how different it would have been if only Manchester had said, "We are sorry we acted as we did. We thought we were acting in the best interests of everybody, including the shareholders. As a Corporation, however, we realise that in such matters our procedure must be scrupulously correct and our communications must observe the highest standard of clarity and integrity. We apologise and we are only too anxious to put matters right in any way we can. We are truly sorry." That is the language of humility. [Laughter.] However much hon. Members may laugh, that is the language that the Manchester Corporation of an earlier generation might have used and it is still not too late for it to be used now. The bigger somebody is and the more powerful he is, the more everyone admires him

if he honestly and sincerely says that he is sorry.
The last thing I want to do is to block the Bill. It would put both the Manchester ratepayers and the Cheshire County Council to even greater expense, to say nothing of inconveniencing some of my constituents. All I ask is that the wrong which has been done should be put right and in that spirit I have already withdrawn my Motion that the Bill be considered upon this day three months. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree, and that they will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: It must be at least deeply reassuring to the House that when we have heard the last Division bell and have gone to our "Long" home, our purged remains will be protected by the vigilance of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) and that he will scrupulously insist that before anything be done with those remains the Companies Act, the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act and all other statutory laws and enactments that may be relevant should be strictly complied with. It is also something of a comfort to know that the House of Commons of the day will be addressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lt.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) in a speech the purport of which, I gather, is likely to be the subject of humility.
However, the point which has been raised is a point of substance and I want each of the two hon. Members who have spoken to believe me when I say two things. First, contrary to the views held by some on these benches, I readily accept that they spoke with real sincerity and from a sense of anxiety lest any injustice be done to anyone or any impropriety on the part of the Manchester Corporation be condoned simply because it is the Manchester Corporation with its wealth, standing and great reputation. I ask the two hon. Members to believe that though I have the honour of being one of the Members for one of the Manchester constituencies, for my part, whatever I say is said to the House with utter sincerity and is not special pleading made


on behalf of my native city or on behalf of my constituents.
The first point which must be cleared up is the question of the circular by the Manchester Corporation offering to buy the shares in this funeral company. It makes, I would almost say, a refreshing change for a take-over bidder to extend his activities to the lesser-known field of the cemetery company. It is an interesting precedent and it is perfectly right that we should scrutinise all the incidents of it with great care.
There is an Act in being called the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, which deals with the issue of circulars offering to buy shares in companies, public or private. Certain exempted classes of persons—stockbrokers, share dealers and the like—can send out circulars to shareholders making an offer for their shares. The reason for that was that before the war, many fly-by-night traders and individuals and crooks used to send out circulars for shares, get share certificates, promise money and not pay The Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act was passed requiring that only certain people should send out these circulars. That is the Section the infringement of which has been mentioned by the Attorney-General.
Of course, had the Manchester Corporation desired, it could have sent out the identical circular to any of these shareholders unaltered in its wording and nobody could have made mention of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. It really must be made plain. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to do so, and I do not complain when he talks about a criminal offence any more than one of his hon. Friends can complain when I suggest that if he left his car in the wrong place he would be committing a criminal offence; but I wish to urge upon him that the substance of complaint, even if it be true, against the Town Clerk in sending out his circular is far more technical, far less grave and of far less legal concern than a parking offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member, I know, wants to be fair. This affects other reputations outside this House and if he reads the Attorney-General's Answer with care he will see. I will read it to the House, because there should be no argument about it, as it is a point of

some gravity and no one should be misled about it.
Section 13 of the Act prohibits subject to the exceptions specified in subsections (2) and (3) of the Section, the distribution of a circular inviting persons to sell securities. Neither subsection (2) nor subsection (3) seems to me to apply to this case.…
That means that the Corporation were not exempted persons because they were not stockbrokers or licensed dealers and they had not deposited £500 with the Board of Trade to show that they were people of substance
and it would therefore appear that there was an infringement of this Section."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 78.]
That is the only infringement that was alleged. The other Section dealing with the prevention of fraud and the protection of shareholders is an important one. No one is allowed to send out to shareholders, even authorised persons, any circular which is unfair or misleading whether by positive statement or even by omission.
When the vigilant Attorney-General very properly went into this question with the Director of Public Prosecutions, he investigated with great thoroughness, as he was bound to do and with all the apparatus, machinery and resources of the law, all that had been done and he came to this conclusion. He said it in unmistakeable language. A full inquiry has been made by the police in order to ascertain whether there is evidence of an offence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.
The result of this inquiry showed that there was no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts.
The Attorney-General has expressly said, having conducted a full police investigation, that this circular sent out was absolutely without blemish either in its affirmative statements or in any question of distortion and even was free from any complaint that there was a suppression of any material facts.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Report from the Committee on the Manchester Corporation Bill. In the penultimate paragraph, he will see that the Town Clerk admitted in evidence that in


seeking to buy shares on behalf of the Corporation he had not disclosed that the break-up value of the shares was in excess of the £1 per share offered.

Mr. Lever: I do not want to have to read to the House long tracts in detail. I know that the hon. Member wants to be fair on this matter, particularly as it affects the reputation of a great city and its leading citizens. The Attorney-General had a police investigation which was not available to the Committee. He got together considerable evidence, took professional advice, and came to the absolutely decided conclusion that no complaint could be made about the substance of the circular either in its affirmative character or that there was a suppression of material facts.

Mr. John Hobson: This is an important matter. I think it is the main point of the argument. It is consistent with the view that there was a perfectly innocent suppression or concealment of an important fact, because all that the Attorney-General says is that there was no dishonest concealment and under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act dishonesty is an essential element. Nevertheless, it does leave open the conclusion that the Town Clerk, perfectly innocently, and believing that the shares were valueless, did omit to state to the shareholders facts that might have been material for their consideration.

Mr. Lever: The Attorney-General said that there was nothing in that circular which could be construed as a dishonest concealment and any attempt to construe the circular—and any hon. Member on either side of the House is perfectly within his rights to attempt to do so—in a way which implies some form of impropriety or dishonesty in its wording is in flat contradiction with the careful conclusion of the Attorney-General based upon the full information which was not available to the Committee, to the Board of Trade, or to any hon. Member of this House.
I do not think that there is any responsible Member of this House who would, or will, attempt to construe this circular in any way which is in conflict with the Attorney-General's decision.
While I do not and cannot object to hon. Members saying that this might have

been in the circular or that might have been in the circular, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford, who is a sportsman and whom I know would not want any low hitting, will not want anything he has said to be taken as being in contravention of the Attorney-General's findings. Whatever criticism he has about the circular, he has not suggested any impropriety in its wording which implies any intention on the part of the Corporation or the Town Clerk to be unfair or dishonest to the shareholders.
Do not let us make too heavy weather about the fact that the Corporation did not send out the circular through stockbrokers. I do not think that it becomes any more impressive or that the shareholders would be in any way more protected. The only reason for the circular being sent to stockbrokers is that the stockbroker, if he makes any offer, will be there to pay for the offer if it is accepted. It is not suggested that the Corporation could not find the £2,000-odd required if they made an offer.

Sir J. Barlow: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Select Committee which says that it is clear to the Committee that the Corporation obtained the shares by giving a one-sided view which failed to disclose the true position of the company on break-up? That is most important.

Mr. Lever: On that point it is a little difficult to reconcile such a view with the view based upon the full knowledge which became available to the Attorney-General. If in fact the Corporation sent out a circular, acting with full professional advice, the Attorney-General would make no special allowance for it. If they really sent out a one-sided circular it is a little difficult to see how the Attorney-General came to the conclusion that there was no dishonesty involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was not as if it were some financial innocent like the hon. Member for Knutsford or the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich. It was a very experienced Corporation which sent out the circular armed with every kind of accountancy, and legal advice. I am sure that the Attorney-General would have made allowance for that if the Corporation had sent out anything that was hopelessly one-sided. Quite certainly the Attorney-General would have been forced to the conclusion that, if there had been


a misleading of the shareholders, that was dishonest in the sense that it was calculated to make them sell their shares too cheaply.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: That is what it did.

Mr. Lever: I am trying to be as sincere and as fair as I can. If the Corporation, with all professional advice, had sent out a circular which was one-sided and calculated to make the shareholders part with their shares more cheaply than they would have done if they had received a circular setting out the full facts, then the Corporation would have been guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.

Mr. Hirst: The word "dishonesty" is very important in the context. Nobody suggests that the Town Clerk did it intentionally, or that the Corporation intended it, but in all probability had this been done by stockbrokers the full break-up value would have been given.

Mr. Lever: I give way because I believe that no one would intervene on such a grave matter except to express very sincere anxiety about the facts of this situation.
It is not really arguable that the Corporation of Manchester, with its Town Clerk, surveyors and financial advisers could have sent out a one-sided circular, calculated to get the shares cheaply, and not have been dishonest if they suppressed material facts. I hope I have it clear that it is dishonesty within the meaning of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act if the Town Clerk sent out a circular which was one-sided and which would have been known to him to be one-sided.
But the Committee was not in possession of all the facts, as was the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General was armed with the whole apparatus of the Fraud Squad. He was able to ask every shareholder. It must be borne in mind that no charitable allowance would have been made to a Corporation which, according to the Attorney-General, was already in technical infringement, if the Corporation had suppressed material facts which ought to have been drawn to the attention of the shareholders. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will be extremely unfair if he holds that view contrary to the only responsible opinion.

Mr. Hirst: I am accepting what the Report says.

Mr. Lever: In so far as the Report conflicts with the Attorney-General's findings, and, let it be remembered, with the findings of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the whole apparatus of police investigation in these matters, one must, of course, reject the Report. One is bound to do so if one is honest and sincere.
As to the realities of the situation, on the question of shares it has been suggested that the Corporation has been unfair in seeking to avoid the ordinary effect of the Companies Act in the winding up of the company and in the distribution of its assets. While I am prepared to the end to believe in the sincerity of the intention of hon. Members to do justice both to the Manchester Corporation and to its leading public servant, there is a point at which credulity may be strained by the action of hon. Members themselves.
The Corporation is charged with the offence or unfairness of seeking to avoid the effect of the Companies Act, which says that, when one winds up a company, the assets, after all its liabilities have been paid off, go to the shareholders. There is nothing wrong in that. It is done every day and it is perfectly reasonable that it should be done.
The situation often arises in normal financial transactions that a company finds that it must go into liquidation because business has ceased, and it then finds that some other person would like to buy the company. Instead of the shareholders being compelled, against their wishes, to have liquidation and a winding-up and all the expenses of that, to the benefit of the legal and accountancy professions and not to theirs, a bid is accepted from an outside person who wants to buy the assets. The directors, in advising acceptance of such a bid, point out that the shareholders are getting rather more than they would otherwise receive because the expense of liquidation has been saved.
The Corporation had no point in putting this company into liquidation. Except on the basis that the Bill would be passed, it was impossible to calculate what the assets of the company would be. The best advice that the Corporation


could obtain and could give, as set out in the circular, was that the shareholders would do much worse in a liquidation, after they had been to the expense of liquidation and the colossal expense of attempting to disclaim the liabilities of the company by an appeal to the courts. The company was in a singular difficulty, because it might have gone to the expense in the courts and, in the end, might have been turned down by the courts, after all the assets had been dispersed in a fruitless attempt to get a favourable decision from the courts.
The Corporation bore that in mind. The Manchester City Council and all the parties represented thereon, and all the professional advisers of the Corporation, are not really hell-bent to cheat the shareholders of the cemetery out of a trifling sum. This is not a large-scale take-over. The difference between £1 and £2 a share, except as a difference of principle, is a matter of £1,000 or £2,000. Manchester Corporation is not anxious to cheat the shareholders. It proclaimed, when it passed its resolution, that it wanted to be not merely fair but generous to the shareholders in its offer.
There is no reason to doubt the Corporation's sincerity. This is not a political matter. People of all parties on the Manchester City Council, having investigated with considerable anxiety all these transactions, are abundantly satisfied that the Manchester Corporation and its public officials, and particularly the Town Clerk, have behaved with perfect fairness and decency.
I ask hon. Members who profess admiration for the city of my birth to bear in mind the fact that every single member of the City Council and its officials anted in this belief. We all like to ride our hobby horses. I like to ride mine and I suspect that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford are riding theirs, but I know that behind their remarks lies a very real sincerity and deep anxiety for people who might be unfairly treated.
But I know that they would want to put the matter in the proper proportion and, in those circumstances, they cannot maintain that all the officials of the Corporation would act in such a way. It might happen in the case of one eccentric official, who wanted to cut the cost by

£500 and achieve a petty victory at the expense of a shareholder, but it is not conceivable that he would be backed through thick and thin by every Member of Parliament representing the City of Manchester, by every city councillor, and every one of his colleagues in the professional representation of the City of Manchester. I would ask the House to bear that fact in mind.
Have the shareholders been fairly treated? I will put the other side of the point. Manchester Corporation honestly thought that the shareholders were being generously treated. Practically every shareholder has accepted the offer. Some of them had legal advice before accepting; some had the advice of stockbrokers, and some had the advice of accountants, and except for a few almost untraceable shares all the shareholders have accepted the offer. Over 90 per cent. of the shares have been accepted.
Hon. Members object, sometimes with a certain amount of reason, to the way in which we discuss company business and affairs in this House. Hon. Members rise from the back benches, never having seen the inside of the industry concerned, and hold forth freely and recklessly, much to the indignation of the men in the industry who sit seething in the public gallery while the affairs of their industry are being discussed. Two directors of this company are chartered accountants; both have accepted the offer. They do not need professional advice, because they are accountants. Not only did they advise the other shareholders to accept; they have accepted themselves—a token of sincerity which is not always in evidence in the case of some of the take-over bids in which the Manchester Corporation is not a buyer. Some of the shares have been bought upon the advice of surveyors and valuers, because property assets are concerned. Every kind of advice—from bankers, stockbrokers, solicitors and accountants—has been brought into the matter.
It is quite true that in some cases there are voiceless small shareholders, who cannot go to the trouble or expense of making themselves heard in complaint, but in this case the Attorney-General and the Fraud Squad set out to find complaints. There has not been a complaint by a single shareholder—not one. The shareholders have not complained, and the directors have not complained. It it a little hard


for hon. Members opposite to soapbox on their behalf. The shareholders are calm, well-satisfied and well-informed. It is not the quiet of the grave that has descended upon the remunerated shareholders, but rather the satisfaction of those who have done a transaction with a local authority which has proved generally more favourable to them than would have been the case than if they had dealt with a finance house.
I have no hesitation in assuring the House about this matter. It would be idle for me to go into the details of the balance sheet, but I can tell the House that, having scrutinised it very carefully, I have not the least doubt that the offer made was fair to the point of generosity. It was as generous as the Manchester Corporation could justly make it, having regard to its duty to the citizens of Manchester.
It is easy to be generous with public money, and it would have been easy for the Town Clerk to have saved himself much embarrassment by slipping into the Treasurer's office and saying, "We will offer another £2,000; it is not our money." But they could not in conscience pay £2 a share. In offering £1 they were stretching themselves to the very limit of permissible generosity, having regard to the fact that they were not paying from their own pockets but from public funds.

Lieut. -Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the hon. Member aware that we are not arguing whether or not the price was a fair one? That is quite immaterial to us. We are saying that the letter should never have been sent, and was contrary to Section 13 of the Act.

Mr. Lever: On the findings of the Attorney-General, without any complaint or reference to the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, the Corporation could have sent the identical letter through a second-rate stockdealer who had paid a few hundred pounds to the Board of Trade to get a licence to do it. The wording could have been exactly the same, word for word, and no sort of offence would have been committed.
I would make an earnest personal appeal to hon. Members opposite. The Bill is a valuable one, and is so regarded by all hon. Members, and by Manchester. There is the further point that any mistake is the mistake of the Town

Clerk, who sent out this circular without the consent or formality which is required of the law. That mistake has been paid for over and over again by that official, in terms of the anxiety involved and the grotesque exaggeration of the situation which has occurred.
The Town Clerk of Manchester is an official who enjoys the confidence and, indeed, the affection of every hon. Member of this House who has had occasion to meet him and knows of his work for the City. We have known of trouble because local authority town clerks and senior public officials have had difficulties and personal arguments with different members of their councils. But the Town Clerk of Manchester is virtually unique in enjoying the authoritative confidence of every member of the City Council and I know that no one in this House, in the limited time and circumstances available for Private Members' Bill procedure, would want to do anything to undermine the situation and cause more hardship and grief to an official who has done nothing but deserve praise and good will from the public authority he serves, and from the House of Commons which, of course, is responsible for the actions of people throughout the country.
I beg hon. Members who have spoken to be fair about this and to have a sense of proportion about it. They have done their duty. They have raised the requirements for the protection of shareholders, and I beg them now to consider the effect on the Bill, and the consequences of the misinterpretation of any further opposition in the minds of the public in the form of a slur on the Town Clerk of Manchester who, in his wartime and peacetime service has done nothing to deserve any such slur.

8.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I feel that it may help hon. Members if I intervene at this early stage. I do so reluctantly, because I know that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak, but I think that it may help them if I indicate how the Board of Trade came into this matter, and, in so doing, I may be able to assist hon. Members in arriving at a decision.
That Board of Trade intervened originally in this matter because it has certain


duties under the Companies Act. Shareholders acquire shares in a company and creditors have dealings with it on the basis of the rights and liabilities contained in the Companies Act. The Board of Trade must safeguard the principle that in the winding up of a company, shareholders and creditors should not be deprived of the protection afforded by the Companies Act. While in this particular case creditors seemed to be looked after, that did not appear prima facie to be the case as regards the shareholders.
I should perhaps explain at the outset, since the matter has been referred to, that the Ardwick Cemetery Company was not a statutory company, that is to say, one established by a special Act of Parliament. A statutory company is governed by the provisions of the relevant Act. Thus, if I may give the House an example, the Winchester Cemetery Company was a statutory company established under a private Act of 1840, which contained in effect a complete code for the running of the company's affairs. It was dissolved and the Act repealed by the Winchester Corporation Act, 1952. As the Manchester Corporation says, the Board of Trade did not comment in this case. It did not do so because it had no standing in the matter. The Ardwick Cemetery Company, however, was an ordinary limited company and subject therefore, to the provisions of the Companies Act.
It may help hon. Members if I mention that the provisions of the Manchester Corporation Bill came to the notice of the Board of Trade in accordance with the arrangements under which Private Bills are, under a Standing Order, deposited with Government Departments. This Bill proposed that the undertaking of the company, including its assets and liabilities, should be transferred to the Corporation; that the shareholders should have a right to receive £1 in respect of each share, and that the company should be wound up under a procedure laid down. There was no question of any agreement as to price or of any freedom of choice by the shareholders. It was a case of compulsory transfer, at a price which had not been agreed, and the extinguishing of the shares.

Mr. H. Lever: indicated assent.

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to observe the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) nodding his head, because I appre-

ciate his knowledge of these matters. The shareholders would get £1 per share if they asked for it.
The Board of Trade officials put these considerations to the Parliamentary Agent, suggesting that the Bill should be amended so that the price paid by the Corporation was a price agreed with the company or with all the shareholders and the company be wound up under the Companies Act, but this procedure was not found to be acceptable. The Board of Trade officials made it known that the Board of Trade would be putting in a report to the Select Committee. Therefore, this Board of Trade intervention did not come as a surprise.
In the Board of Trade report to the Select Committee the general point was made that a company incorporated under the Companies Act should be wound up in accordance with that Act. The report went on to show, by way of example, in what respects disregard of the proper procedure could prejudice the interests of the shareholders. It seemed clear that not every shareholder could be consulted. Not all their addresses were known. As another example, under the procedure envisaged, the company's file, which the Board of Trade has to keep available for public inspection, would contain nothing to show that the company had been wound up. Prima facie, it also seemed to the Board of Trade that, purely on the basis of the latest available balance sheet, the company had assets equivalent to more than £ 1 per share.
All these examples were an indication of what might be involved if the provisions of the Companies Act were disregarded. The Board of Trade officials who gave evidence before the Select Committee made it quite clear that their concern was with the procedure, and that they could not pronounce, nor was it their duty to do so, on the question of what was a fair price.
There was evidently much discussion before the Select Committee about the way in which the company had neglected its duties. Whatever one may think about the sad state into which the cemetery had been allowed to decline, that is not a matter for the Board of Trade. I want to make that absolutely clear. Our duty is to ensure that shareholders, whether or not the company has been well run, that is to say, provided that no offences


have been committed, receive on a winding up their due rights, whatever they may in the event amount to.
Here I must emphasise that the Board of Trade report was directed to the provisions of the Bill in the form in which it was brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. In actual fact the Manchester Corporation had, as it says in its own statement, gone ahead of the Bill. It had already become the holder of most of the shares as the result of the letter sent out by the Town Clerk on 2nd December, 1957, a letter which was unknown to the Board of Trade when it sent its report to the Select Committee. I emphasise this, because the Board of Trade comment on the break-up value on the evidence of the 1956 balance sheet was not made in relation to this letter, which, as I say, was unknown to the Board of Trade.
The statement by the Town Clerk that he had already approached shareholders naturally raised the question—and this was a new issue—whether there had been compliance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, which prescribes the channels through which invitations to deal may be sent to shareholders. When, in his replies to the Select Committee, the Town Clerk agreed that he had not mentioned the break-up value in his letter, the possibility arose further of a breach of Section 12 of the Act, which relates to invitations which are false or misleading or conceal material facts.
The Board of Trade has responsibilities under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act as well as under the Companies Act and it seemed to us proper, inasmuch as the Board of Trade was already inevitably involved, that the question whether proceedings should be taken should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The House will be aware of the conclusions reached by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the Town Clerk's letter seemed not to offend against Section 12 of the Act. It might help the House if I read the relevant two sentences, which are:
The results of this inquiry show that there is no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material fact. Consequently there are no grounds of prosecution for an offence against Section 12 of the Act.

Nevertheless, as the statement went on to point out, there was an infringement of Section 13 of the Act, which relates to the channels through which invitations to sell securities may be circulated. If I may say so, I cannot think that the Manchester Corporation would still wish to maintain, as it still does in its statement, that the Town Clerk has acted throughout with complete propriety, since he would seem to be guilty of an infringement of Section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There is an explanation of that.

Mr. Erroll: The Manchester City Treasurer, in his report, comments with understanding on the attitude of the Board of Trade, but thinks that a settlement by agreement was unobjectionable and less expensive than recourse to the normal Companies Act procedure. On the first point we are at one with him. Had the Bill in fact proposed the transfer of the undertaking at a price agreed with the company, we would not have raised any objection.
The outcome of the Board of Trade report and of discussions which took place thereafter with the Town Clerk of Manchester has been satisfactory in that the Bill has now been amended. I think the actual revised wording needs to be improved, but the intention is that the undertaking shall be transferred at a price to be agreed and the company wound up in accordance with the Companies Act. With that the Board of Trade is content. Had, from the start, the proposal been for transfer at an agreed price, no difficulty would have arisen.
There is one other matter on which there is misunderstanding to which I should perhaps refer. I hope hon. Members will be patient with me. The Manchester Corporation thinks that there is an attitude of the Board of Trade which would encourage other cemetery companies to think that by neglecting the cemeteries and husbanding their resources they have merely to go into liquidation and the liquidator, by applying to the court, will be given leave to disclaim the derelict cemetery and to distribute the husbanded resources among the shareholders.
There is, of course, no such attitude on the part of the Board of Trade.


Neither we nor anybody else can say what view would in fact be taken by a court on a disclaimer of onerous property in any particular circumstances. None the less, the possibility of such a disclaimer being allowed always exists and it seems to me that it was a proper comment of the Board of Trade representative to mention the possibility in connection with the corporation's statement that the liability of the Ardwick Cemetery Company to put the cemetery in order far outweighed its assets. I cannot believe that such a statement of fact could create the misapprehension suggested by the Manchester Corporation.
This brings me to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). As I have said, the Board of Trade is content with the Bill as amended, and it is not part of our responsibilities to go further in the interests of the shareholders, most of whom have in fact accepted the £1 offered. I do wonder, however, whether, in view of the conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the letter from the Town Clerk was not misleading, there is any virtue in pressing this Amendment. It seems to me that my hon. Friend may in these circumstances prefer to withdraw his Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government hopes to intervene very briefly later, but as he knew I would be on my feet before him, he has asked me to make one point which properly belongs to him. He tells me that there are a number of Clauses in the Bill which deal with matters of urgent public need and that it would be most injurious to the public interest if the Bill were lost as a result of carrying this Amendment. That is for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to say. I hope that I have helped hon. Members in all parts of the House by explaining the work done behind the scenes by the Board of Trade, the attitude we took, and why we took it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I will not attempt to argue the details of the Companies Acts, or the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, because I am certainly not an expert on that subject. However,

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) made a devastating and almost anticipatory reply to the hon. Gentleman on certain points. However, I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Board of Trade would not wish anyone to read into the evidence that was put before the Select Committee by the Board of Trade representative an indication that the Board of Trade would consent to cemetery companies placed in a position similar to that of Ardwick Cemetery Limited disclaiming their liabilities. A reasonable man reading that evidence might very well come to that conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham was extremely generous in his treatment of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport). My hon. Friend said that he thought that they had acted from the highest motives. However, both hon. Members used the occasion, protected by the Privilege of the House of Commons, to repeat the most serious charges and sneers against the Town Clerk of Manchester and against Manchester Corporation, charges which could not be borne out now that we have had the report from the Attorney-General. It was interesting, too, to see how occasionally the true reasons for the objections emerged. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich referred to part of his constituency which had been taken over for Manchester's housing needs, and the hon. and gallant Member talked of Manchester's struggle with Cheshire over overspill.
I remind the House of the circumstances which prevailed in the cemetery for which this company is responsible and in whose interests so many hon. Members have been exercised. The cemetery began in the 1830s, originally comprising about 7½ acres. In the course of time, until further burials were prohibited, in 1950, it contained no fewer than 74,000 bodies. As long ago as 1893, by Order in Council, the opening of further graves was prohibited, although burials were permitted to be continued in the existing graves. It was not until 1950 that Manchester Corporation obtained Parliamentary sanction to prevent further burials.
Selling graves in what was then a fashionable cemetery was a very lucrative


business in those Victorian times. When one considers the number of burials which took place in seven acres—and all the graves were sold—one gets some idea of the sum involved. It was a fashionable cemetery and some of Manchester's most distinguished citizens have been buried there—John Dalton; the first Lord Mayor of Manchester, Sir Thomas Potter; and Ernest Jones, a name distinguished in the Chartist movement and remembered especially on this side of the House.
But since 1950 the cemetery has become extremely dilapidated. Its dilapidation proceeded apace from the moment it became unprofitable to the owners. The present position is that weeds 12 or 14 ft. high are in the cemetery, graves are dispoiled, vaults are open, rubbish is tipped in odd corners, and the surrounding walls and gates, which should have been maintained by any company with a serious sense of responsibility, have been neglected to the point where anyone can obtain access to the cemetery.
When I went to look at the conditions and came across the grave of John Dalton, I noted with some interest that it was distinguished by being relatively well kept. I wondered why this grave had escaped the general neglect that characterised the rest. On returning from Manchester to London the following week, I met a friend, a physicist, who had, at one time, been a lecturer in physics at Manchester University and, of course, knew very well that John Dalton was buried there.
When I mentioned this to him, he said, "Yes, I know that that particular grave is well maintained, and I will tell you why. When I was at the university, my professor, who thought something of the memory of Dalton, was so outraged by the neglected cemetery that he himself, not less than once a fortnight, cycled, with a bucket on his handlebars, from his home several miles away in a suburb of Manchester, in order to keep in reasonable condition the grave of that distinguished Manchester citizen, a figure revered in science."
All around lie the ancestors of my constituents; victims of the cholera epidemics—all put in, and nowadays completely neglected—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell them about Ernest Jones, next to him.

Mr. Griffiths: As I have already said, Ernest Jones was a distinguished Chartist leader. His gravestone was neglected, but was restored some years ago by the organised action of the trade union movement in Manchester.
I see that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is present, and as he had down an Amendment about the use of the cemetery, perhaps he will be interested to hear that part of the original 7½ acres owned by the cemetery company has, with the absence of profits from the selling of graves, been leased to commercial enterprise, which is, I am informed, in contravention of the law. I do not know whether this comes within the purview of the Board of Trade—I gather from one of my hon. Friends who is an expert in these matters that it does not—but I hope that there is some Government Department that is as vigilant about breaches of the law in this respect as some seem to have been in pursuing the Town Clerk of Manchester.
These pieces of the cemetery have been let to commercial enterprises which are being operated over the graves of thousands of Manchester citizens. I will tell two stories to illustrate the point. The first, related to me, coincidentally, yesterday in this House by a visiting constituent, is this. He happened to work for one of the private enterprises leasing part of the land from the cemetery company. In the course of his employment he was driving a stake into the ground. According to him, 18 in. below the surface he struck a solid object, which he took to be a railway sleeper. On getting away the 18 in. of soil, he found that he had, at that depth, struck the graves.
Secondly, he told me that the people working for this enterprise on the burial ground leased by the cemetery company—I believe, improperly and illegally—are advised by their employers to be extremely careful about what they put into the ground, and not to disturb anything, because, otherwise, just under the surface, some of that enormous number of 74,000 Manchester people will be uncovered. So much for the stature of some of the people, at least, who have been responsible for this cemetery company.
The object of the Manchester Corporation was clearly a worth-while one. It was to turn this monstrous dilapidated cemetery into a modern amenity. If I might just sum up its present condition almost in a phrase, I would say that, if any hon. Member saw it as a backcloth or set for a Hollywood film of the adventures of Dracula, he would think that it had been exaggerated, so appalling is its dilapidation. What the Manchester Corporation proposes to do is to turn it into something that would be, as I say, a useful amenity for the citizens of Manchester.
I will not—the House will, no doubt, think mercifully—go over the arguments once again about the letters sent by the Town Clerk to the shareholders. But as the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich quoted earlier an extract from a leader in The Times, may I remind the House of what the Manchester Guardian said about this matter following the publication of the Attorney-General's findings? As has been said several times this evening, the Attorney-General recorded that he had no ground for concluding that the Town Clerk's letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts. As the Manchester Guardian commented, that clearly is in conflict with the findings of the Committee's Report, which said that the Corporation obtained the shares by presenting a one-sided view which failed to disclose the true position of the company on break-up.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said, the Attorney-General had recourse to channels of inquiry which clearly our colleagues who sat on the Select Committee could not possibly have, and it is no reflection at all upon the findings of the Committee to say that the Attorney-General's comments may well be taken by the House as being a more truly accurate assessment of the position than that Which our colleagues found with the facts which were put before them in the Select Committee. I hope that the House will accept the Attorney-General's view rather than that of our colleagues on the Select Committee for the reasons which I have advanced.
The Manchester Guardian properly recorded that the Town Clerk's probity, in consequence of this report on this matter, had been entirely vindicated. I should

think that most Members would agree with that. I thought that some of the observations which were made today by the mover and seconder of the Amendment were a little ungenerous in view of what has happened in this matter.
Perhaps I might also say that these shareholders who responded to the Town Clerk's invitation to sell the shares—and I think that all but seventy-five very promptly responded to the offer—were not people who were ignorant of their rights. The fact of the matter is that the acceptance of the invitation to sell was received by the Manchester Corporation through solicitors, accountants, bankers and people who, I assume, have the technical knowledge to advise and defend their clients' interests.
It is the fact that despite all the publicity that this matter has had in the national Press, despite the quite unfair misrepresentation of the position of the Town Clerk and the Manchester Corporation, even to this moment, so far as I know, there is not a single shareholder who has sought to take up a position other than the one that he originally took up. It seems to me that they are satisfied that their professional advisers advised them quite adequately.
As to the argument about the true value, it has been argued that the value on break-up would be greater than the £1 offered by the Manchester Corporation. I must be careful in trespassing into this field because I am not an expert, but it is a fact, and it is recorded, that as recently as 1952 the shares were valued for probate at 5s. We are close to a debate on Privilege, and, although I disagreed with the majority decision yesterday, I never invoke Privilege too easily in this House. I am satisfied that following the offer that the Manchester Corporation made—it was known that they were going to make this offer for shares—there were some obtained for as little as 2s. 6d. I am satisfied as to the source of my information, and I hoped that it might be possible to substantiate this in detail, if it were necessary, at a later date.
All the evidence and understanding on the matter I can obtain leads me to believe that, unless the company were able to disclaim its liabilities, its assets would be rapidly swallowed up in putting right the state of affairs which now exists.


Without any of the jargon, I understand disclaimer simply to mean that the company walks out and leaves the Manchester Corporation with the mess of the cemetery which it is today. The ratepayers, our constituents, would have to take it up and put right the things that the company has neglected for so many years. As I say, unless the company were able to disclaim, its assets would be rapidly swallowed up in putting the cemetery into decent order.
If the Manchester Corporation is to be criticised at all, it should, I think, be criticised on the ground that it has failed for a very long time to pursue the owners of the cemetery for not putting the place in order. If anything, the Corporation has erred on the side of generosity in the offer it has made. If my constituents were able to understand the case thoroughly, they might have a criticism of the Town Clerk and the Manchester Corporation on the ground that they have been over-generous to the cemetery company.
Throughout this matter, although there has been a charge that the Town Clerk and the Corporation may have committed a technical breach, they have acted clearly in the highest tradition of local government, clearly with a view to putting an end to a misuse to a piece of private property in the City and turning it into an amenity which can be of benefit to the citizens of Manchester and a valuable asset to the City.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has said that the Board of Trade is satisfied with the position as it is now, because I cannot, for myself, see any merit whatever in the proposal to recommit the Bill or to amend it in the way suggested in the Amendment calling for its recommittal. I should have thought that the ordinary layman, at any rate, would suppose that the suggestion that the shares on break up were worth more than £1 had been disposed of by the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Neither can I understand how, if the proposed Amendment were carried, it would be possible to value the net assets

of the cemetery. A valuer cannot possibly know in advance if the court will or will not give leave to disclaim.
In my submission, moreover, the Amendment is unfair. It proposes that the Corporation shall pay £1 any way, but that if, by any chance, the shares were found to be worth more, it shall pay the extra amount also. If there is a proposal to go to valuation, the fair way is to say, "All right, we will go to valuation and we will pay whatever is decided upon." I venture to suggest that if that were done, and the shareholders had any option in the matter, they would unhesitatingly take the £1 and let things stay as they are. I hope to show, very briefly, that the shareholders have had not only a very fair deal, but a very generous one.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Winchester and Newbury cemeteries, saying that the position there was different and that it was not for the Board of Trade to intervene in any way. Just the same, I should like to remind the House that in both of those cases the assets, when the cemeteries were wound up or were taken over by those respective corporations, were greater than the assets of the Ardwick Cemetery Company, and in both instances the shareholders got absolutely nothing for their shares.
I think that the Ardwick shareholders have been treated very well. I do not, of course, for one moment question the right, indeed the duty, of a Select Committee to report to the House in such words as it thinks fit. But I am bound to say that it seemed to me in this case that the Select Committee perhaps paid overmuch attention to and accepted rather too readily at face value the written report of the Board of Trade, but ignored the way in which that report had been amended or altered by the Board of Trade representative in evidence.
It has been said that the Board of Trade did not know that that letter had been written. I found that rather hard to follow. The letter was written on 2nd December last year. The reason for which all right hon. and hon. Members representing Manchester tabled the Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, found was not necessary, was that we felt that the comments made in the Report of the Committee on the action


of the Town Clerk and of the Corporation were, to put it mildly, somewhat unreasonable, and that they appeared to us to reflect unfavourably on the honour and dignity of the Corporation and of the Town Clerk.
There are two points to which I feel I must once again draw the attention of the House. First, the Report of the Select Committee stated that the Town Clerk admitted in evidence that in seeking to buy the shares on behalf of the Corporation he had not disclosed that the breakup value of the shares was in excess of the £1 offered. To my mind, that suggests that the Town Clerk, in fact, believed that the shares were worth more and deliberately concealed that belief. I do not know whether that was what the Committee intended to convey. I hope it was not, but that was the impression made on me.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I should like to read from page 14 of the minutes of evidence before the Committee. It states:
Chairman"—
that is, myself—
Did you, Mr. Dingle, in your letter tell the shareholders that they were entitled on a break-up of the company to a division of the shares and that on the basis the shares would be worth more than £1 each? A. No, I did not.

Mr. H. Lever: That was not the fact. Why should he?

Mr. Johnson: It is not my place to criticise the Committee or argue with the Chairman, but I should like to refer to a passage in the Town Clerk's evidence seven lines from the bottom of page 14. He said there that in his opinion the break-up value of the shares was negligible. If he held that view, I do not see how he could have been expected to disclose something which he did not in all honesty think was the case. There was a possible misunderstanding on that point, and I do not wish to pursue it any further. The Select Committee's Report went on to say:
It was clear to the Committee that the Corporation obtained the shares by presenting a one-sided view which failed to disclose the true position of the Company on a break-up.
That again, in the opinion of, I think, all hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies, was a somewhat unreason-

able comment, and I am sure that the House is glad that that has been answered completely in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which I do not think I need quote again as they have been quoted a number of times already.
I believe that anyone who had gone into, the figures and the facts of this case very throughly would inevitably have come to the conclusion that the offer made by the Corporation was not only fair, but extremely generous. As has already been pointed out by several hon. Members, that at least was the view of the shareholders, acting with professional advice, in nearly all cases; and despite all this publicity, none of them has complained that they have been unfairly treated.
As to the valuation of the shares, there would seem to be three possible ways in which this could be done. The first would be on the dividend record and the prospects of the company; secondly, on the possible sale of the land for commercial use, and thirdly, on break-up. I need not go into the first two of those methods, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has already made the point for me, taking it from a rather different point of view, that the shares were not worth very much. It is, perhaps, a point of interest that the last time the shares were valued for probate, a value of 5s. was accepted by the Board of Inland Revenue.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I do not like to interrupt my hon. Friend—I think it is a bad habit to interrupt people in the middle of their speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not interrupted any hon. Member on the other side. We are not arguing as to whether the price of the shares was fair. To my mind, that is entirely irrelevant. What we are saying is that the letter should never have been sent. That is the sole point on which we object.

Mr. Johnson: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view. I know what he is arguing about and I also know what I am arguing about. My purpose is to show that the shares, in my view at least, were generously valued and, therefore, there is no possible object in recommitting the Bill to have any different form of valuation applied than is at present provided for.
If one comes to the question of break-up value, I think it would be admitted on all sides to be something which is extremely difficult to estimate. The Board of Trade, in the report to the Committee, stated quite correctly that in a winding-up under the Companies Act, 1948, the shareholders are entitled to any surplus after payment of creditors and of the cost of winding up. The Report goes on to say that judging from the company's last available balance sheet, the tangible assets exceeded the issued capital. From that, the report went on to draw the conclusion that on a break-up basis the shares were worth more than £1. That sounds all right on the face of it. But Section 316 of the Companies Act, however, also states:
In every winding up … all debts payable on a contingency, and all claims against the company, present or future, certain or contingent … shall be admissible to proof against the company …
Presumably, those liabilities would include the statutory notice which the Corporation would be bound to serve on learning that the company was proposing to go into liquidation and go out of existence and abandon the derelict area so as at least to preserve the available funds for the overdue work of maintenance. In fact, there is little doubt that the liabilities considerably exceed the assets.
The Board of Trade representative said in his evidence that he thought it possible that a liquidator might have obtained leave from the court to disclaim and to distribute the assets irrespective of the problem that the abandonment of the cemetery would transfer to public responsibility. I am no lawyer, but, surely, it is most unlikely that the court would allow the liquidator to disclaim if it knew that the Corporation was prepared to take over the cemetery on condition that the Corporation had the assets transferred to itself. I believe that the case of Nottingham was entirely different, because that Corporation refused to take over the Nottingham cemetery on several occasions.
We have had an explanation from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade of the point made by the Corporation in its statement that the attitude of the Board of Trade would be an encouragement to other cemeteries

to neglect their duties, to husband their resources and then to go into liquidation. The House has heard my hon. Friend's explanation of that. I quite accept that that is not the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but, for all that, I think that a good many companies might think that that was an opportunity they might take.
In this case, the 1957 balance sheet shows that the assets are £3,469, after allowing for depreciation of the investment, and that if the cost of liquidation therefore came to more than £1,369, the 2,100 shares on that basis alone would be worth less than £1 apiece. That is fairly clear. It is impossible, of course, to estimate the cost of these actions, but we know that in the case of the Nottingham Cemetery Company the taxed costs have been £1,750, so we can conclude therefrom that on that basis alone, and leaving anything else out of consideration, the value of the shares is worth less than £1.

Mr. Norman Pannell: Is it not fair also to take into account the leased land which is bringing in a rental of £310 a year? Is it not likely that that situation will persist, and that the Corporation will continue to collect that sum?

Mr. Johnson: It is a rather dubious point, because it is illegally leased in the first place. The company had no right to lease it. I cannot help coming to the conclusion that if the Board of Trade had given a little more thought to the preparation of that Report it would not have made in it the categorical statement that on a break-up basis the shares are worth more than £1 apiece.
Its representative subsequently modified that in his evidence. The Board of Trade representative made, to my mind, a rather extraordinary statement on pages 17 and 18 of the evidence when he said:
Mr. Dingle was quite right when he said that when we wrote the report we have submitted we had not the figures—in fact, I had not heard them until this morning—
I do not understand that. He went on to say:
The brokers, one can well understand, would advise that these shares were of no value.… In the case of a liquidation the position is somewhat different. You are not only then looking at the value from the income


point of view you are looking at the value from the break-up point of view which might or might not be more".
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) made an interjection during the proceedings of the Committee. He said:
It may be less".
to which the Board of Trade's representative replied:
It may well be less, Sir, and with that may I say I do not think the Board of Trade is concerned.… It may be less, it may be more. I have only commented that on the last balance sheet available to us it would appear to be more.
That seems a very different statement from the categorical one made in the written report that on a break-up basis the shares are worth more, a statement made, apparently, without the figures having been seen. I say again—I do not want to criticise the Committee in any way as I have told my hon. Friend—that I cannot help thinking that it did show a certain lack of caution in wording its report in the way it did.
The fact that the Board of Trade say that the liquidator might have obtained leave to disclaim and that the shares might or might not have been worth more, and might or might not have been worth less seems to me inadequate ground on which to condemn a distinguished public servant in words which might well ruin his career.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to page 17, in which counsel for Manchester Corporation told the Committee:
I see what you mean, no. £3,100 would not have to be spent.
That was in reply to the question:
There is no claim for £3,100 such as Mr. Dingle has suggested.
That was counsel for Manchester Corporation himself.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Member turn to document 5 of the proceedings of the Committee and quote the passage where the Chairman cut off the Town Clerk?

Mr. Johnson: I leave the hon. Member to make his own comment later on. As to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), I have, of course, read that statement, but it seems to me that it did not take into account the possibility that the Corporation might obtain a statutory order

against the cemetery company and compel it to put the cemetery in order, when it would have cost a great deal more than £3,000.
It has not been a pleasant thing for the Town Clerk of Manchester to be accused of being a swindler. It has not been pleasant for him to have his actions investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nor has it been pleasant for him to be submitted to the spate of malicious gossip let loose by the Motion put on the Order Paper by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford, no doubt for excellent motives, as perhaps a self-appointed guardian of public morals.

Mr. Hirst: Widely supported.

Mr. Johnson: It is not for me to speculate on my hon. and gallant Friend's motives. Perhaps the most charitable way to refer to them is in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who once, in answer to a Supplementary Question, said that an hon. Gentleman took a keen interest "in many things that are beyond his comprehension." I hope that we have been able to satisfy the House that the company has had a fair deal, and, as the Board of Trade is satisfied with the position, I hope that my hon. Friends will see fit to withdraw the Motion.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I feel that the debate has been of considerable value from many points of view. First, it has been an object lesson to those who manage commercial cemeteries on how they should be conducted and the attitude of the Board of Trade towards such companies. Attention has also been focussed on the provisions of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939. The value of the debate has also been the complete vindication, from the point of view of honour, of the learned and distinguished Town Clerk of the City of Manchester which I am proud to represent in the House as the Member for Ardwick and as last year's Lord Mayor of the City.
No Lord Mayor of Manchester has ever been simultaneously a Member of the House. Therefore, I can really interpret the feelings and views of the people of that very great and famous city. It is a a city renowned throughout the world


and one on which not only the past and present but the future prosperity of this great country largely depends. We have in our city a population of nearly 750,000. They include industrious working-class people, middle class and better off people, all co-operating for the prosperity of the city. We are very proud to own the second airport in the country and also very proud to be the controlling owners of the third seaport.
Having narrated the circumstances, we must remember the type of authority which Manchester is. Its 152 representatives are drawn from all political parties—and all those 152 members have unanimously and emphatically expressed their complete confidence in the honour and the activities of our distinguished Town Clerk, who himself is not only a distinguished lawyer but a distinguished son of a distinguished legal jurist—one who has been associated with the law of this country and whose name will continue to be so associated in the terms of a standard legal textbook.
One should draw the line between probity and propriety and should not attempt to flog this issue, and the town clerk with it. What is the scope of the problem? It is only that instead of the circular having been sent out by a stockbroker, as prescribed by the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, it was sent out by the Town Clerk. It was quite easy for the Town Clerk—

Major W. Hicks Beach: Is not the hon. Member aware that there have been prosecutions against private individuals under Section 13 of the 1939 Act? That was what I was trying to ask the Minister about, when hon. Members opposite said "Sit down". There have been prosecutions of a similar nature. That is what worries me.

Mr. H. Lever: Before my hon. Friend replies, may I say that any such prosecution has been undertaken only when there has been some ground for suspecting dishonesty?

Mr. L. M. Lever: What is more, the learned Attorney-General specifically stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) that even though a technical offence had been committed he did not think that it was in the

public interest that any further steps should be taken.
I do not think that anyone concerned has been namby-pamby towards the Town Clerk or the Manchester Corporation. I am very glad that this matter has been investigated and sifted. That is the greatness of our British system of justice. It illustrates the wonderful part that this House plays in finding out what is wrong, if anything is wrong, and there is no doubt that the Attorney General has vindicated the Town Clerk. Even though there has been a technical offence, he has said that he does not think it worth while bothering about. It would not be in the public interest.

Major Hicks Beach: I did not suggest for a moment that the Attorney General had been namby-pamby. What I am seeking to do is to get it quite clear that a technical offence under Section 13 of the 1939 Act should not be the basis of a prosecution against a private individual if it is not against a town clerk. That was the question that I was seeking to ask the Minister. I have reason to think that there have been prosecutions under this Section.

Mr. H. Lever: No.

Major Hicks Beach: If the hon. Member says, "No", I accept it.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I should like to explain to the House how a Bill of this kind originates. Every year the various committees of the Corporation are asked whether they have any problems or difficulties which they consider ought to be introduced as part of a Corporation Bill. Any such problems are collated and go before a General and Parliamentary Committee consisting of 48 members from all political parties. Before any instructions are given about a Bill the Committee is unanimous in its proposals. This Bill has gone forward against that background.
Unfortunately, Ardwick lacks open spaces and similar amenities. The people there have to live in a closely congested area. What was a fashionable burial ground in 1837 and in subsequent years is no longer fashionable. It has deteriorated. Because the houses in this area are so closely congested, the people there, particularly the children, are denied open spaces for recreation.
The Town Clerk and the Corporation has acted with the utmost good faith. In fixing this proposed price, the City Council took into account, first, advice from a stockbroker that the shares were probably unmarketable. The recent dividend record of the company, taken in conjunction with the net profits earned and loss sustained by the company in recent years, had been up to 2½ per cent. of the dividend of last year. But when asked to do any repairs, the company could not pay any dividend at all. That is the sort of company it was.
The investments held by the company were worth approximately £3,800. I suppose that if someone had two banking accounts, and in one there was £3,800 and the other was about £4,000 in the "red", that would represent the financial position of this company were it compelled to carry out its obligations and maintain its property in the form of this cemetery in proper order. The income of the company was stated to be £227 5s. a year from leases and this income was precarious. That is no income at all. It was an income derived by the cemetery company in breach of law, about which action might have been taken. Had the company complied with the law there would have been no such income of any kind.
The liability of the company was to maintain the cemetery and its boundary walls. I know this cemetery very well. I paid a visit to it and it was like going through a wood. The graves are overgrown and filthy and its condition is one of complete degradation. It is not kept as a cemetery should be in this civilised age. The Corporation, quite rightly, pursued a policy of trying to tidy up everything in the City. The cemetery at Rusholme Road, in my division, has been dealt with in that way with complete success.
Of the shares acquired, 876 were acquired through four firms of solicitors. Then 78 shares were acquired from a shareholder who is a solicitor—all this ought to go on the record—330 shares were acquired through two firms of surveyors and valuers and 10 shares were acquired through the stock office of one of the five leading banks. In other words, 1,294 shares were acquired through all these sources. How, by any stretch of the imagination, anything of a

shady or dishonest character can be suggested against the Town Clerk or the Manchester Corporation passes my comprehension.
I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) has appealed in very passionate terms, will see reason and common sense about this matter. Ardwick Cemetery is only one part of the Bill. There are 82 Clauses in the Bill, concerned with such things as the establishment of a new roadway through the City which will eliminate congestion and will enable the River Medlock to be culverted so as to allow the extension of the Manchester College of Science and Technology, which is one of the two finest colleges of the sort in the country, and is recognised as of university status. It was opened by the Duke of Edinburgh last year, during my term of office as Lord Mayor, of which I was very proud. This extension is absolutely vital in the national interest.
All these and many other Clauses are concerned with the conduct of local government. The health and happiness of its people are embodied in the Bill. I still hope that hon. Members, like the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford—I know that he has a great regard for Manchester, but apparently seems to be paying us too much attention in recent years—will understand the very serious situation that would arise if the Bill were not to pass. I welcome the remarks of the Minister of State, Board of Trade.

Mr. Erroll: No. Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sorry if I called you the superintendent instead of the sergeant. I welcome those remarks from your authoritative sources, because I know that they embodied the policy of the Board of Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary can understand the dispassionate way in which this matter must be faced.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will be saying a few words before the conclusion of the debate. I hope that he will speak in


terms similar to those in which you spoke on behalf of the Board of Trade. The whole matter has been thoroughly ventilated. At this stage I refer to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford as well as to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich, both of whom are experienced businessmen and understand the whole implication of the situation. I address the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford. I know that you—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."]—he will assist Manchester and that you—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."]—he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair. He has already addressed several compliments to me which I have not earned. I hope that he will remember to observe the forms of the House.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will assist Manchester, too. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will assist the City of Manchester, for which he has professed a great affection and will allow the Bill to go forward. All of us will be very glad when the Bill is passed, so that the improvements which have been formulated at considerable expense and trouble may be approved. Manchester can then continue to serve not only the citizens of Manchester, but those of Knutsford and of Middleton and Prestwich, too, because most of the latter come into Manchester to earn their livings. I hope that you will—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."]—the hon. and gallant Member will allow Manchester to go forward with its developments and that we shall be able to look forward to the passing of the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: We all know the pride which the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) takes in the great City of Manchester and the vast energy with which he defends it on all occasions. May I, from this side of the House, congratulate him on the great energy and resource with which he discharged his duties during his period of office as Lord Mayor of Manchester. He made a wonderful contribution to the civic life of the City. He brought credit to the House of Commons in the discharge of those duties and I am certain that in future he will pursue his tasks with energy on behalf

of the City with as much concern as he now shows for the particular reputations we are considering in this discussion.
I agree with the leader in The Times, that this is "a storm in a teacup". It has been taken far enough and the sooner this important civic Bill is on the Statute Book the better. This controversy is a storm in a teacup and I very much regret some of the expressions used by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) in moving this Amendment. I cannot see how a technical fault, which this matter is, can be described in the strong words of "a criminal offence". To use that connotation in that sense without substantial qualification is quite unfair to the Town Clerk particularly and to Manchester Corporation in general.
Nor can one accept in these circumstances that there was any desire on the part of Manchester Corporation to ignore the law or to be slick. It seemed totally unnecessary for the mover of the Amendment—sincere though his motives were—to remind the House that Manchester Corporation sought to get into the Vote Office, without our knowledge, certain papers which ought not to be there.
This is not the way, the temper, nor the mood in which we ought to discuss this matter. After the appeal made by the hon. Member for Ardwick to the mover and seconder of the Amendment, I hope they will seek to withdraw.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Not a hope.

Sir R. Cary: My hon. Friends cannot have better pleading or better invitation to withdraw than that by an hon. Member on the Government side to meet them half-way in order to get this important civic Bill on to the Statute Book. If one rather happy thing emerges from this debate, it is that both the Town Clerk and the Corporation of Manchester stand completely in the clear in regard to any suggestion of any unworthy action in the prosecution of this Bill. The fate of the Bill is now almost dependent upon this House giving it a passage tonight. I hope that it will receive its final Reading and be placed on the Statute Book before this Session of Parliament ends.
I wish to say a final word to those, not present, who are surviving relatives of those buried in this cemetery.

Mr. John Mackie: I am one.

Sir R. Cary: There may be one or two surviving relatives who have written to the Corporation to say that they give their blessing to the use of this cemetery as a playground for the children of Manchester. I cannot think of a better use to which the cemetery could be put. I cannot think of a better sentiment than that expressed by the famous poet Adam Lindsay Gordon in "The Sick Stock-rider":
Let me slumber in the hollow where the wattle blossoms wave,
With never stone or rail to fence my bed;
Should the sturdy station children pull the hush flowers on my grave,
I may chance to hear them romping overhead.
Some hon. Members have sought to see in the external assets slightly outside the borders of the cemetery something which might be used in a material sense to benefit the Corporation of Manchester. The whole area involved in the transaction will be used. I hope, in future for the benefit of the children of Manchester as a playground. Certainly if the Bill is passed the cemetery will no longer be left in the squalid condition in which Manchester Corporation will take it over.

9.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked me to make a very brief intervention in the debate. Hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have already discussed in very considerable detail the action taken by the Manchester Corporation in purchasing the shares of Ardwick Cemetery Limited, and for the moment I merely wish to put a general consideration to the House.
My right hon. Friend has a general interest in the proper maintenance of burial grounds and cemeteries. The proposed conversion of what is by general consent a derelict cemetery into an open space—or, what is in the mind of the promoters, into a playing field for the use of pupils at a nearby school—is a development which, in principle at any rate, my right hon. Friend feels to be worthy of every encouragement.
This project aside, my right hon. Friend has an interest in a number of other matters with which the Bill deals. The two principal ones were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and are to be found in Clause 23 where the Corporation seeks power to construct a relief road which, I can tell the House, has the support of my right hon Friend the Minister of Transport, and in Clause 27, the Corporation seeks power to culvert the River Medlock so that the Manchester College of Science and Technology can proceed with its development. There are other Clauses dealing with such things as fire precautions and other matters of local government important to the City of Manchester.
In the view of my right hon. Friend, it would be wrong to delay a Bill covering such a variety of useful purposes, or even to risk the demise of the Bill, unless there were very good reasons for so doing. Like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I have heard practically every speech and argument which has been deployed tonight. Whatever view I may take of the various arguments bearing upon the narrow issue of the Ardwick case, I have certainly not heard any convincing argument for putting the Bill as a whole in peril.
As the House knows, the Bill was considered in very great detail by a Select Committee and a number of Amendments were made to it. The Committee amended it in Clause 48 (2) to provide that the cemetery company should be wound up in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Companies Act. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade indicated, that met the main objection in the Report of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
I agree that there remains the question—and it is a substantial question, of course—of whether, matters of procedure apart, Manchester Corporation acted improperly in failing to mention the break-up value and so infringed Section 12 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939.
I will, if I may, reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and by hon. Members on both sides; that this is precisely the issue that was referred to the Director of Public


Prosecutions, and the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in this House on 1st July was quite unequivocal. I repeat it for the benefit of those hon. Members who may have come into the Chamber only in the last half hour.
He said:
The results of this inquiry"—
that is to say, the inquiry by the police—
show that there is no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts. Consequently there are no grounds for a prosecution for an offence against Section 12 of the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 77.]
For these reasons, it is certainly the view of my right hon. Friend, which he has asked me to express here tonight, that it would be wrong for the House to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow).
There is, however, one further reason, upon which I have already touched, though rather lightly. The recommittal of this Bill would necessarily take a certain amount of time. As hon. Members on both sides know, we are now approaching the end of the present Parliamentary Session. It would be quite out of place for me, or for any other right hon. or hon. Member to venture an opinion as to whether, in the event of recommittal, this Bill could be carried over. That is not within my province, but I may perhaps, be permitted fairly to say that carry-over Motions are exceptional.
If, therefore, this Amendment were to be pressed to a Division—and I sincerely trust that it will not be—and if it were to be carried, the House must face the probability that this Bill—as a whole, and not merely in regard to the Ardwick provision—would probably be killed stone dead. My right hon. Friend takes the view, and he has given this a good deal of consideration, that that would be a pity. We recognise, of course, that several hon. Members have felt strongly in the matter of Ardwick, but I would urge upon them, at this stage, to bear in mind not only the fate of the Bill as a whole if they pursue their present course, but the fact that the good faith of the Manchester Corporation, and of

the Manchester Town Clerk, is no longer in question in this House.
I cannot speak more plainly than that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe that I could speak with greater fairness. This is a matter that has exercised my right hon. Friend's mind, and what I have said tonight, and what advice I have tried to give to my hon. Friends, I give in a spirit of friendship and cordiality, and I hope that they will accept it.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. W. R. Williams.

Mr. Ellis Smith: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That "now considered" stand part of the Question, put accordingly and agreed to.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Bill, in page 29, line 26, to leave out from "space" to the end of line 28, and to add instead thereof:
and will ensure that it is not used for the playing of games or any other undesirable purpose having regard to the fact that it has been a burial place".
I do not take the same view which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that this cemetery should be turned into a children's playground. I believe that a number of hon. Members would object very strongly if their parents were buried in this cemetery and they learned that it was to be covered over with asphalt or grass and turned into a public playground. I must confess that my knowledge of Manchester is not extensive—

Mr. Ede: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The only Member of the House whom I cannot hear is the Member whom you called. I can hear nearly every other Member.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ask hon. Members to be quieter.

Mr. Williams: I confess that my knowledge of Manchester is not extensive, but


I am quite certain from my knowledge of the West Country that such a proposal as this would not be accepted there. I believe that when a cemetery gets into the state in which this cemetery is, it should be grassed over and turned into a garden of rest or such a place with seats where people may rest. It would be quite wrong to turn it into a place where children would play and where there would be a lot of noise.
I do not think that many hon. Members realise how recently there have been burials in this cemetery. According to one hon. Member opposite, the last burial took place in 1950. That was quite recent. I do not think that the people related to those who are buried in the cemetery would for one moment accept this Clause in the Bill. I sincerely trust, therefore, that without any trouble at all and without a Division, the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Grant Ferris: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I need not detain the House for more than a moment or two. What I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has been arguing is that it should not be possible, at least in this particular case, for the land to be used for the playing of games or for any undesirable purpose. I should remind my hon. Friend that the Open Spaces Act, 1906, which, on this point, repeats an earlier Act of 1887, expressly provides a procedure under which local authorities may acquire disused burial grounds and may, in certain circumstances, use them for the playing of games.
It is the fact that Parliament gave the Manchester Corporation itself power, in its Act of 1954, to use the site of the Rusholme Road cemetery as a playground, the same power as is now sought in this Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to say that Parliament has never laid it down that, automatically, games must be forbidden on the sites of disused burial grounds. I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept the Amendment.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: After that statement from the Minister, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley

Williams) to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment. I speak with some feeling on this matter. I sunk all my individuality and personal declarations in the general desire that Manchester should have the Bill. Last Saturday morning, I went along to Rusholme Road where a similar kind of thing has already been done. From Rusholme Road I went to Ardwick. A sight of Ardwick Cemetery should be enough to settle anyone's attitude.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) should say what he did after he saw the place last Friday. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Exeter had seen what Manchester has done already in Rusholme Road, he would not pursue his Amendment.
Rusholme Road is in one of the poorest parts of Manchester, amidst some of the worst slums in the country, where some of the finest people—some of us belong to them—still live in their thousands. Their children are now playing in this lovely old churchyard, which has been transformed by Manchester Corporation into a place of beauty. Last Saturday morning, I saw the poor children playing there on that sacred ground, not one of them running or playing except on the land which had been laid out with beautiful turf, and it did my heart good to to see them.
We have here an expression of the desire of Manchester and the industrial North. For far too long we have lived in unlovely, crowded areas like that around Rusholme Road. I ask the hon. Member for Exeter, whose motives we understand, whose sincerity we appreciate, to withdraw his Amendment so that Manchester can have the Bill and carry on its good work, setting an example to the industrial North by cleaning and beautifying places of this kind.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: As possibly the only Member in the House of Commons today who has a family interest in the Ardwick Cemetery—one of my great grandfathers who sat for the Grimsby Division of Lincolnshire was distantly related to a man with the same name, Fildes, who sat at various periods in the 'twenties and 'thirties—I think that I ought to say that I would not wish to


block the Manchester Corporation's desire in this matter, provided—and I think it is amply provided in Clauses 44, 45 and 46—that the tombstones are at the disposal of the Manchester Corporation to deal with as it sees fit. I hope that that means to give the descendants of those buried there the right if they so desire to have them at our disposal. I think, also, that the Manchester Corporation should provide that a complete record is preserved of those who are buried there.
I stress that because in the cemetery of Montmartre, in Paris, no complete record is preserved. I had occasion to go there four or five years ago to visit the tombstone of the grandfather of a constituent of mine, and all trace of it had gone. The cemetery clerk, with great trouble, found the grave and, accompanied by him, I found that it had been completely obliterated.
I hope that the Manchester Corporation will be meticulously careful to ensure that Clauses 44, 45 and 46 of the Bill are carefully implemented. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), who is a former Lord Mayor of Manchester, would not forgive me if, as a great grandson of his predecessor exactly 100 years ago, I did anything obstructive against the Bill.
I understand that this is unconsecrated ground. I regret to say that a former ancestor of mine belonged to the sect of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), although I detest it as Scotland wholly detested Oliver Cromwell.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think that the stipulations for which the hon. Member has asked are reasonable. In my experience they are always carried out by corporations who get these powers. I do not know that tombstones should be removed from the cemetery, particularly in this case. As the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has said, this is what is called an unconsecrated graveyard. That is to say, a bishop has not dedicated it. But it has been consecrated by the burial there of those holding the great Nonconformist tradition of the City of Manchester. Mention has been made tonight of John Dalton, the Quaker scientist.

Mr. Mackie: In Scotland, graveyards are not consecrated. The right hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Ede: This is not in Scotland. These people lived in Manchester.
I regret very much the spirit of levity which on one or two occasions has crept in when dealing with what I regard as the most sacred part of this subject. I would not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that Exeter and Nantwich were beginning to take an interest in it as well. I can understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams).
Take the case of Dalton. He was the son of a poor weaver who was born in 1766. By 1793, in an age when Nonconformists had great difficulty in getting any form of higher education, he had become Professor of Mathematics and Moral Philosophy in New College, Manchester, by the age of 27. He was the discoverer of atomic weight and all physical science and a great deal of chemical science since has been built on his work. In 1822, he became a Fellow of the Royal Society, having declined the honour in 1810. I cannot think of anything more inspiring for the young of Manchester that in a beautiful spot there shall be preserved the tomb of Dalton, which is at present preserved in the manner described by my hon. Friend earlier in this debate.
On the day when this son of a poor weaver was buried in Ardwick cemetery, in 1844, all the civic authorities of Manchester were there and the coffin was followed to the grave by 100 carriages of the wealthy, learned and devout population of Manchester.
I hope that the tombstones will be preserved and that, as far as possible, the records will be preserved, but in view of the fact that the corpses of many victims of cholera epidemics are buried there it may be very difficult to got a complete record. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) will realise that every step is taken to preserve the appropriate atmosphere for what has been a burial ground.
But the living have their claims in the crowded parts of Manchester on such open spaces as can be provided, and as this can be made a record of the great


part that the Nonconformity of Manchester played in the building up of the life of the country and the tremendous wealth of the City of Manchester, I hope that this House will not put any hindrances in the way of the Corporation being able to exercise responsibly any powers that it gets under the Bill.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: My object in seconding the Amendment was purely to make sure that proper respect was paid to the dead who have been laid in the cemetery. I have been very impressed with what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) have said. If my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary), as a representative of the Manchester Members, could give the assurance that every respect will be paid to that, I feel that I ought to withdraw my seconding of the Amendment even if my hon. Friend feels that he must press it.

Mr. Dudley Williams: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

Sir Henry Studholme: rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BRONCHITIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

10.20 p.m.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: After three hours' discussion on the question of a cemetery, it may not be completely inappropriate that we should now have a short Adjournment debate on the subject of bronchitis.
Recently, we have been celebrating the tenth anniversary of the inauguration of the National Health Service. It has un-

doubtedly proved to be one of the great social achievements of the twentieth century. The last decade has seen the practical disappearance of some infectious diseases and great progress made in an attempt to bring to an end the ravages of tuberculosis. At the same time, it is disquieting to find that whereas the graph for deaths from tuberculosis shows a decline from 34,000 in 1930 to 24,000 deaths in 1940 and 4,000 deaths only in 1956–57, the graph for deaths from lung cancer works in the other direction: 1,489 in 1930, 5,000 in 1940 and 20,000 in 1957.
The relationship between lung cancer and cigarette smoking is definitely established. It grieves me—and I speak quite sincerely—to think that I have a number of good friends inside and outside this House who are likely to die from the horrible death of lung cancer who, if they only gave up the habit of heavy cigarette smoking could otherwise expect to live many years longer. I do beg of them to consider the urgency of the appeal I am making to them to give it up. It is not made from any attitude of virtue or busybody interference on my part, for I myself was a heavy smoker from my youth up to a few years ago. I appeal to them on the ground of established medical proof and because of my affection for them and my abhorrence of unnecessary suffering.
Smoking is also one of the factors responsible for the incidence of bronchitis in this country, although there are other factors which play a more prominent part in the development of this black spot in our national health chart. I was confronted for the first time with the facts of this scourge only last week, and they have really shaken me. The Minister of Health informed me on Monday that the number of deaths from bronchitis in England and Wales was for 1930, 19,125; 1950, 28,257, and 1955, 28,793. The figures for 1957 of 26,930 are provisional. The figures are fairly constant. There is certainly no marked improvement, and let us remember that this type of death usually follows years of anguished suffering. When the Minister gave these figures, I said in a supplementary question that in the matter of the incidence of bronchitis and deaths from that disease this was probably the worst country in the world.
That statement of mine seemingly made no impact whatsoever. Not a single newspaper referred to it. One would have thought that for anyone to say publicly and responsibly that this was the worst country in the world, even in any regard, would have shaken even the most phlegmatic and philosophic; but not a bit of it. I shall try to shock people again out of this ingrained fatalistic outlook in this matter.
I repeat that Britain has the worst record in the world for bronchitis. The death rate is four times as high as that in the Ruhr or industrial Belgium, and about twenty times as high as that in the Scandinavian countries. Moreover, in nearly all other countries the death-rate from bronchitis has fallen markedly since the end of the war, but in Britain the decline is slight and the real position is substantially the same as it was in 1940. Despite the introduction of new and powerful drugs, the results of treatment are often unsatisfactory. Therefore, preventive measures are now essential.
There is another aspect of this matter. The Minister was asked on Monday how many working days were lost in the past five years as a result of bronchitis. The figures were: in 1951, 26·61 million; in 1953–54, 25·62 million; in 1954–55, 25·38 million and in 1955–56, 26·87 million. The figures show no improvement in 1955–56 compared with 1951. It really is a shocking state of affairs. We depend for our survival as a great nation on the maxium industrial production, and we just cannot afford to go on like this. Some people wax indignant about the number of working days lost through strikes, but they are almost negligible when compared with the loss as a result of bronchitis. In 1951, the number of working days lost through strikes or industrial stoppages was 1,694,000, and from bronchitis 26,610,000. In 1956, industrial stoppages were responsible for the loss of 2,083,000 working days, while bronchitis was responsible for the loss of 25,380,000.
Bronchitis, of course, is highly aggravated in the heavy industrial areas. The death rate among males between the ages of 45 and 65 in 1953 shows a remarkable disparity between industrial and seaside and country towns. The rates per 100,000 were: Salford 329; Oldham 294; Dudley

286; Manchester 248; Wigan 246; Eastbourne only 48; Great Yarmouth 68; Southport 82; and Canterbury 86. In Salford, the death rate is three times that in the rural Lancashire. On the other hand, in Coventry where most of the industry is modern, the death rate is at the comparatively low figure of 87.
The disease is commonest among industrial workers, especially those in dusty occupations. In the mines, there is a marked difference in those employed at the coal face and those working elsewhere. Taking a standardised mortality ratio for men between 20 and 64 years of age, in 1950 the figures for mineworkers other than at the coal face were 98 and for hewers and getters 180. On the same ratio, the figure for farmers was 29.
Despite the fact that bronchitis is aggravated by non-industrial factors, such as smoking, the causative rôle played by industry appears to be substantial. The three main reasons for the high prevalence of bronchitis in industrial towns are, first, atmospheric pollution; secondly, dust at work; and, thirdly, overcrowding, leading to infection. Preventive measures are surely called for here. Atmospheric pollution is worse in Britain than elsewhere, and though we await the beneficial results of the Clean Air Act, 1956, the responsibility under that Act is not rightly placed. Local authorities vary so much in the discharge of their responsibilities. There must be a more stringent limitation of the damaging sulphur oxides which our power stations, gas stations and railways are daily discharging into the air. We are treating God's clear, pure air like a sewer.
Failure to deal adequately with dust at work is particularly common amongst the smaller industrial concerns who, as a rule, have no industrial medical officers. Why cannot we have medical inspectorates under the Minister of Health to supervise these industrial establishments? The Ministry of Labour inspectors of factories cannot possibly perform the function properly as things are today. What we need is an occupational health service, and the time is ripe to put forward a functional scheme.
My chief complaint is that the liaison between the Ministries of Health, Housing and Local Government and Labour is not what it should be. The Ministry of


Health, in particular, should not be isolated in its thinking from social problems. It should have as much to do with the Clean Air Act as has the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and as much to do with the medical inspection of factories as has the Ministry of Labour. Industry need not be as dirty and dangerous as it now is, and much of our respiratory illness is unnecessary.
Finally, I would refer very briefly to the very unsatisfactory way in which we deal with the people who contract bronchitis. In bronchitis there is often no radiological change, even in the presence of severely impaired functions, and thus there is no compensation, for bronchitis is not a scheduled disease. The law at present does not admit the connection between exposure to dust at work and the bronchitis which results although this condition, with its accompanying loss of elasticity of the lung substance—emphysema—is much more disabling than straightforward pneumoconiosis. In Australia and South Africa miners' claims are more soundly tested, because the authorities there have recognised the limitations of radiological examination on its own, and increasing attention is being paid to other tests which reveal the extent of functional impairment of the lungs. In this country much bitterness can be traced to the anomalies that arise from decisions taken by panels relying on X-ray evidence alone.
One day we shall have to recast our ideas about what is fair and just compensation for workers who suffer from these respiratory diseases. In the meantime, the Ministry must spare no effort on the preventive side. It will be a very rewarding task.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I want to emphasise our very real concern with the points made by my hon. Friend—a concern which I think would be shared by members generally. The seriousness of the situation has been recognised for a long time, and I want to ask the Minister whether, in considering the matter, he cannot call more effectively for the full support of general practitioners throughout the country in a real drive in research into the detailed work. It is the general practitioners who see these cases in the earlier stages, when it is still possible to

do something about them. Once the cases reach the chronic stage the task becomes almost impossible. Therefore, in addition to the preventive side of the matter, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about the possibility of getting the co-operation of general practitioners in research work.

10.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): The hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) has raised a very important question this evening, far transcending the ordinary constituency kind of interest which so often dominates Adjournment debates.
When we speak of the problem of bronchitis, we usually mean chronic bronchitis; that is to say, we are not thinking of a single or pure disease, but a condition resulting in the main from episodes of acute respiratory illness in the past of various types which result in a loss of the normal respiratory defence mechanism so that in future infection tends to descend to the chest. The respiratory tract also becomes unduly sensitive to infection or irritation. Unfortunately, once this has happened treatment becomes very difficult since it can only consist of alleviating the patient's condition and so far as possible preventing or forestalling very acute episodes.
This problem has to be tackled under three heads, research, which is all important, prevention so far as we can, and, of course, treatment. Since the condition of chronic bronchitis is irreversible, obviously we want to stop it from happening at all if we can. For this purpose we have to establish what is not yet fully known, the cause of the disease. A large body of research is being devoted to this under Government auspices, besides other work being done independently by universities and elsewhere. In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) who referred particularly to the co-operation of the general practitioner, and before coming to Government research, I might mention here a study being undertaken by the College of General Practitioners, with the support of the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust. This is a long-term survey, and we cannot expect quick and dramatic findings, but it is of particular interest because it is based on the


family doctor, who is in an especially good position to realise the extent and effect of bronchitis in daily life.
The main Government agency is the Medical Research Council, which has a number of groups at work on different aspects of the problem. Its researches are directed partly to the assessment of health hazards which result from atmospheric pollution. For instance, it is concerned with the presence and effect of sulphur dioxide in the air, and the epidemiological aspect of the matter; conducting field surveys to discover the specific relationships between the incidence of the disease and various external factors.
It is impossible to comment in detail on the lessons which the figures the hon. Gentleman quoted appear to suggest, for instance, in industrial versus rural incidence in the figures for men and women, and the difference between countries. It is to elucidate such problems that research is being undertaken by the various groups into many aspects and factors. There is no reason to doubt that industrial incidence is higher than rural. In itself, this is suggestive of possible causes, and investigations are in hand to see which are in fact involved.
There is no doubt that if a key can be found to the problem of acute bronchitis it will be found in the field of prevention, and although so much about the causes of the disease has yet to be discovered, it is certain that one of the factors most concerned in prevention is the condition of the air we breathe. The most important development in this connection is the introduction of the Clean Air Act, 1956. The implementation of that Act is a matter of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I think it is common knowledge that the Act which became partly operative in July, 1956, became fully effective on 1st of last month. There are thus now very many safeguards against air pollution, and it is known that local authorities are using their powers under the legislation to achieve its aims.
Of course, I absolutely accept that we are not going to get a swift and dramatic result from that, but at any rate it seems to me that the necessary step has been taken there which should ensure in time, along with other measures, a diminution

of what is, perhaps, one of the basic causes of the seriousness of this problem.
Equally important in the prevention of this disease, and, of course, illness generally, is the advice and assistance which the general public gets from its family doctor and through the various preventive services of the local health authority. I suppose that I ought to say just a word here on the question of the connection between smoking and bronchitis, because the hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks with some reference to it.
I should say that the circular which my right hon. and learned Friend sent in July, 1957, encouraging local authorities to publicise what is known of the connection between smoking and cancer of the lung will also have its bearing on bronchitis. We are about to request from the local authorities the results of the campaigns which they have been running in this connection, and I would expect that, as a result of that, we ought to get some helpful information which will have a bearing on this matter.
Now a third point—the treatment aspect of all this. Once a state of chronic bronchitis has developed, the aim of treatment must be to prevent, if possible, and at any rate to lessen, the effects of acute attacks. As a result of treatment, particularly with antibiotics and physiotherapy, the life expectancy of the chronic bronchitic has been extended. That means, of course, that his capacity for work has increased. Antibiotics have, of course, greatly improved the treatment of patients during the acute phases of the disease.
In addition, clinical treatment of patients could have the aim of sheltering them during a period of acute attack from those factors most likely to aggravate it. Two new developments in this connection have acquired some importance in recent years. The first is that owing to the very welcome decline in the incidence of tuberculosis the number of sanatorium beds required for that purpose has, of course, become markedly less. Some of these beds, especially those in rural surroundings away from the smoke and grime of cities, can be utilised for this purpose—not all, but some of them—and patients suffering from chronic bronchitis can be and are being treated there away from the harmful atmosphere that we associate with cities.
The second more recent development on the treatment side is that in a number of places there have been set aside on an experimental basis particular wards which have been fully air conditioned. As yet this has only been done or proposed in a few places. It is a little soon to say how effective it will be, but I want to draw attention to the fact because I am anxious to give the hon. Gentleman as wide a picture as I can of what we are doing in the matter.

The Rev. Ll. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, could he possibly say a word about a possible change of attitude with regard to the compensatory, not the medical, treatment of workers who suffer from bronchitis?

Mr. Thompson: I feel that I should probably be trespassing on the bounds of order if I discussed arrangements which, I am sure, would involve legislation, but I have, of course, paid attention to what the hon. Member has said.
I was describing some of the clinical aspects of the treatment of chronic bronchitis, and the last two points to which I referred, namely, the use of ex-tuberculosis accommodation and the provision of air-conditioned wards, were discussed by the Standing Advisory Medical Committee in 1956. At that time, the Committee formulated no specific advice, but did commend the progress made by the regional hospital boards. Discussions held at the time with senior hospital officers for the regions showed that the boards were, in general, very conscious of the big problems involved in providing for adequate treatment for sufferers from this disease and had done

what they could to provide special facilities.
The hon. Gentleman made some reference to mass miniature radiography. I think he had in mind that there might be some hope of early diagnosis of the condition by this means and that this might make it possible to prevent the disease from developing. There is certainly a theoretical possibility here, but in the present state of our knowledge I do not feel that we should lean too heavily on it. In fact, much more research is needed before we know enough of the factors which may later affect the persons concerned, or of ways of preventing the early symptoms from turning into the chronic disease, and we need much more information before the possibility of early X-ray diagnosis can be turned to the advantage of the potential victims of the disease.
In conclusion, I would say that the crux of this problem is not susceptible of solution by administrative action. More knowledge is needed, and while the Government can, and do provide funds for research, we cannot dictate the pace at which research goes on, or the rate at which progress is made. Meanwhile, we do all we can, within the inevitable limits of our modern environment, with its atmospheric conditions, and the prompt and more effective treatment now possible for the serious lower respiratory infections which have, in the past, been the antecedents of chronic bronchitis should. I think, also lead to the reduction in the incidence of this distressing disease.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.